functions of theoretical framework in literature review

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  

Editage All Access 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 Editage 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 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage 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 $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Table of Contents

A literature review and a theoretical framework are both important components of academic research. However, they serve different purposes and have distinct characteristics. In this article, we will examine the concepts of literature review and theoretical framework, explore their significance, and highlight the key differences between the two.

Defining the Concepts: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Before we dive into the details, let's clarify what a literature review and a theoretical framework actually mean.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research and scholarly articles on a specific topic. It involves reviewing and summarizing the current knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. By examining previous studies, the scholar can identify knowledge gaps, assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, and present a comprehensive overview of the topic.

When conducting a literature review, the scholar delves into a vast array of sources, including academic journals, books, conference proceedings, and reputable online databases. This extensive exploration allows them to gather relevant information, theories, and methodologies related to their research topic.

Furthermore, a literature review provides a solid foundation for the research by establishing the context and significance of the study. It helps researchers identify the key concepts, theories, and variables that are relevant to their research objectives. By critically analyzing the existing literature, scholars can identify research gaps and propose new avenues for scientific investigation.

Moreover, a literature review is not merely a summary of previous studies. It requires a critical evaluation of the methodologies used, the quality of the data collected, and the validity of the conclusions drawn.

Researchers must assess the credibility and reliability of the sources they include in their review to ensure the accuracy and robustness of their analysis.

What is a Theoretical Framework?

A theoretical framework provides a conceptual explanation for the research problem or question being investigated. It serves as a foundation that guides the formulation of hypotheses and research objectives. A theoretical framework helps researchers to analyze and interpret their findings by establishing a set of assumptions, concepts, and relationships that underpin their study. It provides a structured framework for organizing and presenting research outcomes.

When developing a theoretical framework, researchers draw upon existing theories and concepts from relevant disciplines to create a conceptual framework that aligns with their research objectives. This framework helps researchers to define the variables they will study, establish the relationships between these variables, and propose hypotheses that can be tested through empirical research.

Furthermore, a theoretical framework provides a roadmap for researchers to navigate through the complexities of their study. It helps them to identify the key constructs and variables that need to be measured and analyzed. By providing a clear structure, the theoretical framework ensures that researchers stay focused on their research objectives and avoid getting lost in a sea of information.

Moreover, a theoretical framework allows researchers to make connections between their study and existing theories or models. By building upon established knowledge, researchers can contribute to the advancement of their field and provide new insights and perspectives. The theoretical framework also helps researchers interpret their findings in a meaningful way and draw conclusions that have theoretical and practical implications.

In summary, both a literature review and a theoretical framework play crucial roles in the research process. While a literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge and identifies research gaps, a theoretical framework establishes the conceptual foundation for the study and guides the formulation of research objectives and hypotheses. Together, these two elements contribute to the development of a robust and well-grounded research study.

The Purpose and Importance of Literature Reviews

Now that we have a clear understanding of what a literature review is, let's explore its purpose and significance.

A literature review plays a crucial role in academic research. It serves several purposes, including:

• Providing a comprehensive understanding of the existing literature in a particular field.
• Identifying the gaps, controversies, or inconsistencies in the current knowledge.
• Helping researchers to refine their research questions and objectives.
• Ensuring that the research being conducted is novel and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

The Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review

There are numerous benefits to conducting a literature review, such as:

• Enhancing the researcher's knowledge and understanding of the subject area.
• Providing a framework for developing research hypotheses and objectives.
• Identifying potential research methodologies and approaches.
• Informing the selection of appropriate data collection and analysis methods.
• Guiding the interpretation and discussion of research findings.

The Purpose and Importance of Theoretical Frameworks

Moving on to theoretical frameworks, let us discuss their purpose and importance.

When conducting research, theoretical frameworks play a crucial role in providing a solid foundation for the study. They serve as a guiding tool for researchers, helping them navigate through the complexities of their research and providing a framework for understanding and interpreting their findings.

The Function of Theoretical Frameworks in Research

Theoretical frameworks serve multiple functions in research:

• Providing a conceptual framework enables researchers to clearly define the scope and direction of their study.
• Acting as a roadmap, guiding researchers in formulating their research objectives and hypotheses. It helps them identify the key variables and relationships they want to explore, providing a solid foundation for their research.
• Helping researchers identify and select appropriate research methods and techniques. When it comes to selecting research methods and techniques, theoretical frameworks are invaluable. They provide researchers with a lens through which they can evaluate different methods and techniques, ensuring that they choose the most appropriate ones for their study. By aligning their methods with the theoretical framework, researchers can enhance the validity and reliability of their research.
• Supporting the interpretation and explanation of research findings. Once the data has been collected, theoretical frameworks help researchers make sense of their findings. They provide a framework for interpreting and explaining the results, allowing researchers to draw meaningful conclusions. By grounding their analysis in a theoretical framework, researchers can provide a solid foundation for their findings and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
• Facilitating the integration of new knowledge with existing theories and concepts. Theoretical frameworks also play a crucial role in the advancement of knowledge. By integrating new findings with existing theories and concepts, researchers can contribute to the development of their field.

The Advantages of Developing a Theoretical Framework

Developing a theoretical framework offers several advantages:

• Enhancing the researcher's understanding of the research problem. By developing a theoretical framework, researchers gain a deeper understanding of the research problem they are investigating.  This enhanced understanding allows researchers to approach their study with clarity and purpose.
• Facilitating the selection of an appropriate research design. Choosing the right research design is crucial for the success of a study. A well-developed theoretical framework helps researchers select the most appropriate research design by providing a clear direction and focus. It ensures that the research design aligns with the research objectives and hypotheses, maximizing the chances of obtaining valid and reliable results.
• Helping researchers organize their thoughts and ideas systematically. This organization helps researchers stay focused and ensures that all aspects of the research problem are considered. By structuring their thoughts, researchers can effectively communicate their ideas and findings to others.
• Guiding the analysis and interpretation of research findings. When it comes to analyzing and interpreting research findings, a theoretical framework provides researchers with a framework to guide their process. It helps researchers identify patterns, relationships, and themes within the data, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis.

Developing a theoretical framework is essential for ensuring the validity and reliability of a study. By aligning the research with established theories and concepts, researchers can enhance the credibility of their study. A well-developed theoretical framework provides a solid foundation for the research, increasing the chances of obtaining accurate and meaningful results.

Differences Between Literature Reviews and Theoretical Frameworks

Now, let's explore the key differences between literature reviews and theoretical frameworks.

Key Differences:

• Focus: A literature review focuses on summarizing existing research, while a theoretical framework focuses on providing a conceptual foundation for the study.
• Scope: A literature review covers a broad range of related research, while a theoretical framework is more specific to the research problem at hand.
• Timing: A literature review is typically conducted early in the research process, while a theoretical framework is often developed alongside the research design.
• Purpose: A literature review aims to inform the research and establish its context, while a theoretical framework aims to guide the interpretation and analysis of findings.

In conclusion

Understanding the distinction between a literature review and a theoretical framework is crucial for conducting effective and meaningful academic research. While a literature review provides an overview of existing research, a theoretical framework guides the formulation, analysis, and interpretation of research. Both components are essential for building a strong foundation of knowledge in any field. By comprehending their purpose, significance, and key differences, researchers can enhance the quality and rigor of their research endeavors.

Love using SciSpace tools? Enjoy discounts! Use SR40 (40% off yearly) and SR20 (20% off monthly). Claim yours here 👉 SciSpace Premium

Learn more about Literature Review

5 literature review tools to ace your reseach (+2 bonus tools)

Role of AI in Systematic Literature Review

Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

A complete guide on how to write a literature review

How to Use AI Tools for Conducting a Literature Review

You might also like

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — ChatPDF Showdown

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

• 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: Aug 30, 2024 10:02 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Frequently asked questions

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

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

Frequently asked questions: Dissertation

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

• An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
• A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
• A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

A dissertation prospectus or proposal describes what or who you plan to research for your dissertation. It delves into why, when, where, and how you will do your research, as well as helps you choose a type of research to pursue. You should also determine whether you plan to pursue qualitative or quantitative methods and what your research design will look like.

It should outline all of the decisions you have taken about your project, from your dissertation topic to your hypotheses and research objectives , ready to be approved by your supervisor or committee.

Note that some departments require a defense component, where you present your prospectus to your committee orally.

A thesis is typically written by students finishing up a bachelor’s or Master’s degree. Some educational institutions, particularly in the liberal arts, have mandatory theses, but they are often not mandatory to graduate from bachelor’s degrees. It is more common for a thesis to be a graduation requirement from a Master’s degree.

Even if not mandatory, you may want to consider writing a thesis if you:

• Plan to attend graduate school soon
• Have a particular topic you’d like to study more in-depth
• Are considering a career in research
• Would like a capstone experience to tie up your academic experience

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation shouldn’t take up more than 5–7% of your overall word count.

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A thesis or dissertation outline is one of the most critical first steps in your writing process. It helps you to lay out and organize your ideas and can provide you with a roadmap for deciding what kind of research you’d like to undertake.

Generally, an outline contains information on the different sections included in your thesis or dissertation , such as:

• Your anticipated title
• Your abstract
• Your chapters (sometimes subdivided into further topics like literature review , research methods , avenues for future research, etc.)

When you mention different chapters within your text, it’s considered best to use Roman numerals for most citation styles. However, the most important thing here is to remain consistent whenever using numbers in your dissertation .

In most styles, the title page is used purely to provide information and doesn’t include any images. Ask your supervisor if you are allowed to include an image on the title page before doing so. If you do decide to include one, make sure to check whether you need permission from the creator of the image.

Include a note directly beneath the image acknowledging where it comes from, beginning with the word “ Note .” (italicized and followed by a period). Include a citation and copyright attribution . Don’t title, number, or label the image as a figure , since it doesn’t appear in your main text.

Definitional terms often fall into the category of common knowledge , meaning that they don’t necessarily have to be cited. This guidance can apply to your thesis or dissertation glossary as well.

However, if you’d prefer to cite your sources , you can follow guidance for citing dictionary entries in MLA or APA style for your glossary.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, an index is a list of the contents of your work organized by page number.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation goes first, before all other content or lists that you may choose to include.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation should include your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date.

Glossaries are not mandatory, but if you use a lot of technical or field-specific terms, it may improve readability to add one to your thesis or dissertation. Your educational institution may also require them, so be sure to check their specific guidelines.

A glossary or “glossary of terms” is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. Your glossary only needs to include terms that your reader may not be familiar with, and is intended to enhance their understanding of your work.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, dictionaries are more general collections of words.

An abbreviation is a shortened version of an existing word, such as Dr. for Doctor. In contrast, an acronym uses the first letter of each word to create a wholly new word, such as UNESCO (an acronym for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

As a rule of thumb, write the explanation in full the first time you use an acronym or abbreviation. You can then proceed with the shortened version. However, if the abbreviation is very common (like PC, USA, or DNA), then you can use the abbreviated version from the get-go.

Be sure to add each abbreviation in your list of abbreviations !

If you only used a few abbreviations in your thesis or dissertation , you don’t necessarily need to include a list of abbreviations .

If your abbreviations are numerous, or if you think they won’t be known to your audience, it’s never a bad idea to add one. They can also improve readability, minimizing confusion about abbreviations unfamiliar to your reader.

A list of abbreviations is a list of all the abbreviations that you used in your thesis or dissertation. It should appear at the beginning of your document, with items in alphabetical order, just after your table of contents .

Your list of tables and figures should go directly after your table of contents in your thesis or dissertation.

Lists of figures and tables are often not required, and aren’t particularly common. They specifically aren’t required for APA-Style, though you should be careful to follow their other guidelines for figures and tables .

If you have many figures and tables in your thesis or dissertation, include one may help you stay organized. Your educational institution may require them, so be sure to check their guidelines.

A list of figures and tables compiles all of the figures and tables that you used in your thesis or dissertation and displays them with the page number where they can be found.

The table of contents in a thesis or dissertation always goes between your abstract and your introduction .

You may acknowledge God in your dissertation acknowledgements , but be sure to follow academic convention by also thanking the members of academia, as well as family, colleagues, and friends who helped you.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter of a thesis or dissertation presents your research results concisely and objectively.

In quantitative research , for each question or hypothesis , state:

• The type of analysis used
• Relevant results in the form of descriptive and inferential statistics
• Whether or not the alternative hypothesis was supported

In qualitative research , for each question or theme, describe:

• Recurring patterns
• Significant or representative individual responses
• Relevant quotations from the data

Don’t interpret or speculate in the results chapter.

To automatically insert a table of contents in Microsoft Word, follow these steps:

• Apply heading styles throughout the document.
• In the references section in the ribbon, locate the Table of Contents group.
• Click the arrow next to the Table of Contents icon and select Custom Table of Contents.
• Select which levels of headings you would like to include in the table of contents.

Make sure to update your table of contents if you move text or change headings. To update, simply right click and select Update Field.

All level 1 and 2 headings should be included in your table of contents . That means the titles of your chapters and the main sections within them.

The contents should also include all appendices and the lists of tables and figures, if applicable, as well as your reference list .

Do not include the acknowledgements or abstract in the table of contents.

The abstract appears on its own page in the thesis or dissertation , after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 200–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

In a thesis or dissertation, the acknowledgements should usually be no longer than one page. There is no minimum length.

The acknowledgements are generally included at the very beginning of your thesis , directly after the title page and before the abstract .

Yes, it’s important to thank your supervisor(s) in the acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation .

Even if you feel your supervisor did not contribute greatly to the final product, you must acknowledge them, if only for a very brief thank you. If you do not include your supervisor, it may be seen as a snub.

In the acknowledgements of your thesis or dissertation, you should first thank those who helped you academically or professionally, such as your supervisor, funders, and other academics.

Then you can include personal thanks to friends, family members, or anyone else who supported you during the process.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions

Abstract This essay starts with a discussion of the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as components of a manuscript. This discussion includes similarities and distinctions among these components and their relation to other sections of a manuscript such as the problem statement, discussion, and implications. The essay concludes with an overview of the literature review, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework as separate types of manuscripts.

Related Papers

Ernest Kwakye

Human Resource Development Review

Maria Plakhotnik

Tonette S Rocco

Abstract Making the transition to management is one of the most difficult challenges first-time managers face. Organizations pay for the failure of first-time managers and benefit from their success. The purpose of this article is to challenge Hill's (1992) argument that the transition to management involves two processes:“a process of learning from experience” and “a transformation of professional identity”(p. 121) and suggest a third process—building leadership potential.

Monica Lee , Thomas Garavan

Abstract One aspect of personality, perceptions of internal versus external control of reinforcement, shifts under conditions of change. This review of the literature examines the relationship between planned organizational change and locus of control. The review includes literature from the disciplines of clinical and social psychology, adult development, education and learning theory, business and management, and human resource development (HRD).

Tonette Rocco

Carlos Albornoz

Judith Bernier , Maria Plakhotnik

ED492742 - An Examination of Qualitative Empirical Studies at the AHRD from 1999-2003: Research Purpose, Research Questions, and Inquiry Literature Cited.

RELATED PAPERS

Chaundra L. Whitehead

Drea Zigarmi

Ciaran McFadden , Tonette S Rocco

New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development

Diane Chapman , Nancy C. Hunt-Fire , Tonette S Rocco , Nancy Fire

Tonette S Rocco , Maria Plakhotnik

Sunyoung Park

Usman Ghani

Drea Zigarmi , Brad Shuck

Human Resource Development …

Robin S. Grenier

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences

Nana Oppong

Ian Baptiste

A. Herd , Brad Shuck

Ronan Carbery

Tonette S Rocco , Linda Bliss

zakia ghani

Tonette S Rocco , Judith Bernier

ΡΙΤΑ ΠΟΥΠΑΚΗ

farouk iddrisu

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Khalil Dirani

HTTP://EDUCATION. FIU. EDU/ …

Sanghamitra Chaudhuri

mahdi kateb

Vicky Zygouris-Coe

Jamie Callahan

Rajendran Raju

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• DOI: 10.1177/1534484309332617
• Corpus ID: 21047961

Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions

• T. Rocco , Maria S. Plakhotnik
• Published 15 February 2009
• Human Resource Development Review

299 Citations

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks: an introduction for new biology education researchers, differentiating between conceptual and theory articles: focus, goals, and approaches.

• Highly Influenced

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND LAW: MEANING, FUNCTIONS AND DIFFERENCES

A conceptual framework for qualitative research: a literature studies, fifteen rightsizing your research method, writing integrative literature reviews, workshop in conducting integrative literature reviews, conducting and writing a structured literature review in human resource development, nature and purpose of conceptual frameworks in design science, the literature review as an exercise in historical thinking, 27 references, writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples, scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation, who or what creates a conceptual framework for social creativity, research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, managers as facilitators of learning in learning organizations, why organizations choose to manage diversity toward a leadership-based theoretical framework, the effect of gender on thetransfer of interpersonal communication skills training to the workplace: three theoretical frames, an exploratory examination of the literature on age and hrd policy development, understanding the work beliefs of nonprofit executives through organizational stories, qualitative research and case study applications in education, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

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 Multidiscip Healthc
• PMC11345462

Theoretical Domains Framework: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis from 2005-2023

1 Department of Gastroenterology, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University, National Children’s Medical Center, Shanghai, 201102, People’s Republic of China

Yuyan Huang

Yingwen wang.

2 Centre for Clinical Practice Guideline Production and Evaluation, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University, National Children’s Medical Center, Shanghai, 201102, People’s Republic of China

Xiaofeng Xu

3 Nursing Department, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University, National Children’s Medical Center, Shanghai, 201102, People’s Republic of China

Associated Data

All the data used in this study are available from the corresponding author Ying Gu.

The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is among the most extensively utilised foundational frameworks in implementation science. It was developed from 33 psychological theories, with the latest version identifying 14 domains encompassing 84 theoretical constructs. These domains and constructs capture the complexity of factors that affect behaviours, making the framework a valuable tool for designing and implementing interventions within health and social care settings.

To summarise the development, hot topics, and future trends in TDF-related research and provide implementation practitioners with more information on the application of TDF.

We used TDF as the topic and searched the ISI Web of Science Core Collection, identifying 1382 relevant publications. We used analytical tools such as Excel, Tableau, VOSviewer, and Citespace to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the relevant publication.

We identified the United Kingdom as the primary contributor, with University College London as the key institution. Susan Michie ranked highest in total citations. The analysis highlighted cancer and stroke as primary clinic medicine-related topics using TDF. Emerging themes encompass abuse, violence, maternal health, antenatal care, patient involvement, and trauma-informed care et al. “Nurse” and “qualitative research” emerged as recent and enduring hotspots, possibly indicating future research trends.

This article represents the first attempt to summarise the TDF using bibliometric analysis. We suggest this method can be used to analyse other theoretical frameworks in scientific implementation of its objectivity and quantifiability. Overall, the application scope of TDF is shifting from public health towards more specialised clinical directions, although its application in the field of public health is continuously expanding. In the future, the number of users of TDF is also expected to expand from implementation scientists to professional technical personnel.

Introduction

Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most widely used foundational theoretical frameworks in the field of implementation science. 1 The development and validation of the TDF went through two phases. The first phase involved the establishment of a comprehensive theoretical framework consisting of 12 domains and 128 explanatory constructs by a team of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers. 2 In the second phase, Cane et al refined the TDF in 2012 after validation, identifying 14 domains covering 84 theoretical constructs. The 14 domains include Knowledge, Skills, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Beliefs about Capabilities, Optimism, Beliefs about Consequences, Reinforcement, Intentions, Goals, Memory, Attention and Decision Processes, Environmental Context and Resources, Social Influences, and Emotion and Behavioral Regulation. 3 Also in 2012, French et al published an article on the four steps for developing intervention measures using the TDF, guiding researchers in comprehensive intervention strategy design. 4 In 2017, Atkins published a guide with the aim of assisting the implementation community in achieving their implementation goals using TDF. 5 Over the past decade, TDF has been extensively utilised in the global healthcare arena. Its application has bolstered the confidence of healthcare professionals in carrying out projects. 6

The topic of TDF-related research encompasses evidence-based guidelines implementation, 7 health check initiatives execution, 8 vaccinations, 9 health promotion app utilisation, 10 school-based daily physical activity, 11 and others. The study population is inclusive of administrators, healthcare practitioners, patients, and the general populace. Research settings span across various contexts, including hospitals, communities, households, and schools et al. Qualitative research predominates, with the primary research method utilising interviews and focus groups. 5 Several systematic reviews have synthesised existing research findings, addressing specific research questions such as how to apply the TDF to design interventions for behaviour change in healthcare practitioners and the general population. 12–14 Other studies have summarised the application of TDF in identifying barriers and facilitators in areas like guideline implementation,15 medication adherence,16 sustainable practices in operating theatres, 15 and pressure injury prevention. 16 It is essential to access these publications to evaluate their impact on research and development.

Bibliometric analysis is a valuable research methodology that provides quantitative insights into the publication landscape of a particular field. 17 Compared to systematic reviews, it does not require an in-depth interpretation of each literature piece, allowing for a larger volume of literature inclusion. It focuses on quantitative analysis of citations and co-citations, offering a macroscopic view of research field hotspots and trends. At this level, it can serve as a valuable complement to systematic reviews. Notably, there is currently a dearth of bibliometric studies about the TDF. We aim to offer valuable insights for future research by conducting a bibliometric analysis of literature centred around the TDF.

Materials and Methods

Retrieval strategies.

The data for the study was obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), recognised as one of the most commonly utilised databases for bibliometric studies. The search was conducted on December 27, 2023, using “Theoretical Domains Framework” as the topic. We also included an article by Cane et al in our search strategy, as this article formed the original version of the TDF, but the full text does not mention the term “ Theoretical Domains Framework”. To ensure comprehensive retrieval, we added the article’s title to our search strategy. Therefore, our search term was: (TS=(“Theoretical Domains Framework”)) OR TI=(“Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence-based practice: a consensus approach”).

The data utilised in this study are publicly accessible and do not contain protected health information. Therefore, no approval was sought from the Ethics Committee of Fudan University Affiliated Children’s Hospital. This study adheres to the BIBLIO checklist for reporting the bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature.

Analytical Tool

Excel (version 16.49) developed by Microsoft company was used to display the annual number of publications.

Tableau (version 2023.2.1), 18 developed by Christian Chabot, Chris Stolte and Pat Hanrahan, was utilised for presenting global publishing density and high-frequency keywords.

VOSviewer (version 1.6.19) is a software for creating, visualising and exploring bibliometric maps of science literature developed by the team of Professor Ludo Waltman and Nees-Jan van Eck (Leiden University). 19 We used it to visualise (1) the citations of articles, (2) the top institutions by the number of publications, and (3) the collaboration network of authors and countries.

CiteSpace, developed by Professor Chen Chaomei’s team (version 6.1.R6), serves as an additional software for bibliometric analysis and visualization. 20 The graphs generated by Citespace are more diverse, including (1) the keywords with the strongest citation bursts. The figure will display six columns of data, namely keywords, year (the years in which the keywords appear), strength (burst strength), begin (the start time of keyword burst), end (the end time of keyword burst), and a timeline of the burst; (2). The Timezone of keywords.

Here are all the metrics used in the tables: (1) Total citation(TC) is a noteworthy metric that denotes the frequency with which an article has been referenced by other publications since its publication. Total link strength(TLS) refers to the cumulative strength of connections between nodes in a network or graph.

The graphs generated using VOSviewer to analyse data present three key elements: nodes, lines, and colours. nodes represent the analysed elements, such as institutions and countries. The size of the nodes represents the quantity or frequency. For instance, when analysing the literature citation, a larger node representing a particular document indicates a higher frequency of citations. Lines represent the relationships between two nodes, with thicker edges indicating greater collaboration or more frequent co-occurrences between the two elements. Nodes of the same colour signify that they belong to the same cluster.

Annual Number of Articles on TDF

A total of 1382 articles were included in the study. Figure 1 illustrates a consistent upward trend in the annual publication count of articles focused on TDF from 2005 to 2023. Based on the currently available data, the lowest counts were observed in 2005 and 2009, each with one publication. From 2012 onwards, the annual publication count on TDF exceeded 10 articles, reaching its peak at 301 in 2023.

Annual number of published articles of TDF from 2005 to 2023 on Web of Science.

National Publication Count

Figure 2 displays the publication counts for each country from 2005 to 2023. A total of 73 countries were included in the analysis, with higher publication counts concentrated in Europe, North America, and Australia. The top ten countries by publication count are as follows: England (N=656), Australia (N=353), Canada (N=337), USA (N=182), Ireland (N=83), Netherlands (N=53), Germany (N=36), New Zealand (N=24), People’s Republic of China (N=24), and Denmark (N=20).

National publication count. The countries within the red boxes were the top ten countries in terms of publication numbers.

TC of Included Articles

We set the VOSviewer filter to a minimum TC of 50, 59 articles were included in the analysis, as shown in Figure 3 . Table 1 presents the highest 10 citations based on the document’s citation analysis. In most fields, an article is considered a classic citation if it exceeds 100. The top 10 cited articles in TDF range from a minimum of 182 to a maximum of 2167 citations. Notably, the two articles share the same first author, Susan Michie, a key founder of the TDF. Six articles were published in the same journal, Implementation Science, a leading publication dedicated to presenting evidence on methods to integrate research findings into regular healthcare practices and health policies. The earliest article, published in 2005 and ranked second in citation count, introduced the original version of TDF. The most-cited article, published by James Cane in 2012, involved validating and refining the original version. The latest article, published in 2017, provides practical guidelines for using the TDF to assess implementation issues and design interventions.

Top 10 Cited Articles in TDF Research Between 2005 and 2023

Articles total cited more than 50 times.

Contribution of the Institutions

A total of 1770 institutions were analysed. By applying the VOSviewer filter to include only institutions with a minimum document count of 10, 87 institutions met the criteria (refer to Figure 4 ). These institutions were categorised into 5 clusters. The largest cluster, highlighted in red, encompasses 31 institutions, with University College London (UCL) playing a central role. The second-largest green cluster includes 26 institutions, with key contributors such as the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney, and Monash University. The third-largest blue cluster comprises 20 institutions, prominently featuring the University of Toronto, the University of Ottawa, and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The smaller yellow and purple clusters each contain 5 institutions. Table 2 presents the top 10 institutions based on publication count, with half hailing from Canada, three from the UK, and two from Australia.

Top 10 Institution by Number of Publication

Top 87 institutions by number of publications.

Contribution of the Countries

Co-authorship offers insights into how collaboration and knowledge exchange occur within and across scientific fields. We included the top 100 authors by publication count in the collaborative network analysis ( Figure 5 ) and found that these 100 authors were divided into 11 clusters represented by different colours. Authors from the same country and institution tend to collaborate more closely. The largest cluster, in red, includes 26 authors, most from Canada. The second-largest cluster, in green, consists of 21 authors, most from the UK, radiating outward with key figures such as Susan Michie, Jill J Francis, and Fabiana Lorencatto. Overall, authors within the green and red clusters tend to collaborate more closely, while their collaboration with other clusters is less tight. The yellow cluster, represented by Luke Wolfenden, collaborates closely with the red cluster, and the purple cluster, represented by Natalie Taylor from Australia, also collaborates closely but has fewer connections with other authors.

Collaboration network of top 100 authors.

Co-Authorship of Countries

We included the top 35 countries by publication count in the co-authorship analysis, revealing three clusters (see Figure 6 ). The largest cluster is represented in red, and although the connections between clusters appear relatively thin, indicating a lower degree of collaboration, the countries within this cluster are widely distributed, spanning North America, South America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. The 15 countries in this cluster include the USA, Brazil, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, People’s Republic of China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and Wales (which belongs to the UK). The USA, Canada, and England (part of the UK) establish close and intensive collaborative relationships. The second-largest cluster is green, consisting of 12 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden. The third-largest cluster in blue includes five countries, boasting the highest publication count and demonstrating close collaboration with other clusters. This cluster comprises Australia, Canada, the UK (England, North Ireland, and Scotland), Iran, Ireland, and New Zealand.

Collaboration network of countries.

High-Frequency Keywords

High-frequency keywords serve as crucial indicators of core concepts and hotspots. Analyzing these terms provides valuable insights into the field’s dynamics, focal points, and major trends, guiding researchers in understanding its structure and knowledge network. Figure 7 illustrates the top 35 keywords with the highest occurrence frequency in TDF. Apart from TDF, the top five keywords are qualitative research, barriers and facilitations, behaviour change, implementation, and primary care.

The top 35 high-frequency keywords in TDF.

TDF has been widely utilized in the field of clinical medicine. We screened disease keywords with a minimum occurrence of 5, and ultimately, 21 keywords were included in the analysis (see Figure 8 ). From the figure, it is evident that TDF is most frequently employed in the field of cancer, followed by stroke, diabetes mellitus, COVID-19, dementia, obesity, asthma, low back pain, depression, aphasia, COPD, chronic illness, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, pressure ulcer, chronic pain, diabetic retinopathy, HIV, severe mental illness, hypertension, and traumatic brain injury.

21diseases-related keywords.

Top 50 Keywords with the Strongest Citation Bursts

Keyword bursts map reflects a sudden increase in the citation frequency of a particular keyword during a specific period, providing a comprehensive insight into the evolving trends of hot topics in the TDF research field. The stronger the burst intensity and the longer its duration, the greater the attention and research output received by the topic. We utilized CiteSpace’s burst detection algorithm to analyze keywords in 1382 TDF-related articles from 2005 to 2023. (see Figure 9 )

Top 50 keywords with the strongest citation burst.

In the charts generated by CiteSpace, the timeline is depicted in blue, with the intervals of keyword bursts highlighted in red at specific positions along the blue timeline. Specific details regarding burst keywords, burst intensity, and the start and end years can also be found in Figure 9 . The top three keywords with the highest burst intensity are highlighted: behaviour change intervention (8.33), implementation science (5.87), and psychological theory (5.32). The top three keywords with the longest burst time are: complex intervention (8 years), nurse (5 years), psychological theory (4 years), health care professional (4 years), general practitioner (4 years), prevalence (4 years), health promotion (4 years), implementation science (4 years), qualitative research (4 years). The keywords burst until 2023 include nurse (from 2019 to 2023) and qualitative (from 2020 to 2023).

Timezone of Keywords

The Timezone of keywords, depicted in Figure 10 , is of significant importance as it traces the evolution of research hotspots, identifies emerging trends, and evaluates the dynamics of a research field over time. It has the capability to unveil words that might not have reached a significant burst strength but represent emerging research areas. These less frequently occurring terms, often overlooked by researchers, can offer valuable directions for further exploration. In the figure, the size of the circles represents the frequency of occurrences, with the horizontal axis denoting time and the vertical axis indicating the keywords corresponding to specific time points. The curves reveal the developmental and declining patterns of keywords.

The Timezone of keywords.

The figure illustrates a substantial influx of high-frequency keywords around the 12-year mark, persisting until 2020 and beyond. Around 2023, a surge in low-frequency keywords, such as “abuse”, “violence”, “maternal health”, and “antenatal care”, becomes apparent. These may signify potential research focal points in the coming years.

As healthcare knowledge evolves and evidence-based medicine advances, researchers no longer rely solely on experience and assumptions in implementation research. Using theory and framework to understand the mechanisms behind behaviour, implement intervention measures, and promote behaviour change has gained increasing recognition among researchers. However, given the richness of behavioural psychology theories, there is a risk of overlooking important factors that may determine behaviour when conducting behaviour change research and intervention designs based on only one or a few theories. Researchers often face challenges when selecting and applying the most appropriate theory.

The TDF was first established by Michie et al in 2005. 2 Its core strength lies in attempting a comprehensive coverage of behaviour change theories, integrating various complex psychological theories that were previously disparate. It integrates 33 relevant psychological theories into 128 constructs organized into 12 domains. This simplification of theory application in behaviour change research addresses researchers’ dilemmas.

From 2005 to 2012, there was relatively limited research using “TDF” as a keyword. It was not until 2012, when James Cane’s team validated and refined the TDF, resulting in a version with 84 constructs sorted into 14 domains. 3 Over the past decade, articles with TDF as the main topic have shown a rising trend, and according to the fitted formula based on data from 2005 to 2022, it is projected to surpass 1000 articles per year on the Web of Science by 2030. TDF places emphasis on individual factors while also taking into account social and environmental aspects. Its application affords healthcare professionals a broad perspective for discerning barriers and facilitators, augmenting their confidence in project implementation.

The UK leads by a significant margin in terms of publications, followed by Australia and Canada. These three countries also exhibit the highest intensity of collaboration among themselves, with domestic research institutions actively participating in international research projects and sharing experiences and resources with other countries and organisations. For example, Newcastle University forms a cluster with Australian universities such as the University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, Monash University, and Griffith University (see Figure 5 ), indicating a close collaboration that contributes to advancing the implementation of science and research globally. China is the only Asian country in the top ten for publication volume, and the application of TDF in China has garnered increasing attention. From 2016 to 2013, there were 20 articles in China’s primary literature database, the Wanfang Database.

From our analysis of citation bursts for key terms, two keywords have exhibited significant bursts in recent years, persisting until 2023, namely “nurse” and “qualitative research.” Qualitative research first appeared in 2013 and has emerged as the primary research methodology in TDF applications. This prominence continued through 2020 and persist into 2023, establishing itself as a focal point and trend in TDF research for the foreseeable future. The emergence of “nurse” is a novel finding in this study. Nurses, playing a crucial role in primary health care, have garnered increasing attention regarding their behaviours and experiences. Examples include enhancing nurses’ capabilities in correctly utilizing electronic medication management systems, 21 identifying factors influencing nurse and pharmacist prescriber management of respiratory tract infections, 22 and exploring the components of nurse-patient therapeutic engagement in acute mental health wards. 23 The primary motivation behind our research is to explore the application of TDF in conducting implementation research at our centre, addressing clinical issues, and extending the findings to China.

Cancer is a primary focus in TDF research, and our study reveals that TDF research in the field of cancer is concentrated on cancers of the male and female reproductive and urinary systems, such as prostate cancer, cervical cancer, and bladder cancer. For example, identifying factors inconsistent with guidelines for staging clinical prostate cancer and designing guideline-concordant intervention measures, 24 , 25 explores modifiable influences on medication-taking behaviour in women with breast cancer, 26 Evaluating women’s perspectives on human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling is another aspect of the research. 27

Beyond cancer, there is a wealth of TDF research in stroke rehabilitation. Various chronic diseases are also the key topics, including diabetes mellitus, 28–31 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 32 , 33 chronic kidney disease (CKD), 34–36 chronic pain, 37 , 38 and pressure ulcers, among others. Given the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems, a considerable portion of research attempts to address issues related to COVID-19 vaccination using TDF. 39 , 40 Furthermore, low back pain is another crucial disease topic, and it was one of the earliest areas where an improved version of TDF was applied in clinical practice.

Through the Timezone of keywords, we observed a significant emergence of conceptual keywords related to implementation science in 2012, including “clinical practice guideline”, “behaviour change intervention”, “complex intervention”, and “clinical behaviour”, among others. Notably, there were no specific disease-related terms during this period. In 2020, there was a surge in disease and healthcare-related terms, encompassing public health topics such as “immunisation” and “food”, as well as specific diseases like “muscle tension dysphonia”, “ventilator-associated pneumonia”, “Parkinson’s disease”, “bloodstream infection”, and others. Additionally, emerging topics in recent years include “end-of-life”, “violence”, “abuse”, and “binge drinking”. While most of these terms have not reached the ‘burst’ level, they reflect the expanding application of TDF across various medical specialities, a trend expected to continue.

The limitations of this study include a potential publication bias, as it solely relies on literature indexed in the WOSCC. The focus on English-language publications may also introduce language bias, neglecting valuable contributions in other languages. While providing a macro-level overview, the bibliometric analysis may lack depth in qualitative understanding of specific TDF applications. Furthermore, the study’s cross-sectional nature captures a snapshot in time, potentially overlooking evolving trends. Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into TDF-related research’s current state and trends.

This study is the first attempt to apply bibliometric analysis to the TDF, offering insights into its development, hot topics, and future trends. By identifying key research articles, major contributors, and emerging themes, we provide a comprehensive overview of the TDF’s impact and application scope. The findings highlight the TDF’s evolving role from public health to more specialised clinical directions, while its use in public health continues to expand.

Researchers can leverage bibliometric analysis to explore the evolving landscape of implementation science more effectively. By identifying influential works, key contributors, and collaboration networks, researchers can better strategize their studies to address current and future challenges in the field. The emergence of new topics such as abuse, violence, maternal health, and trauma-informed care suggests that future research may increasingly focus on these areas, expanding the TDF’s applicability.

Future research should consider interdisciplinary applications, particularly in areas where understanding behaviour change is crucial. Exploring the integration of TDF with emerging technologies, such as digital health interventions and artificial intelligence, can enhance the design and implementation of behaviour change strategies. Moreover, Strengthening international collaborations, developing and refining methodological approaches for different cultural and healthcare settings, and conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate the long-term impact of TDF-based interventions will provide deeper insights into their sustainability and effectiveness.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by funds from the Scientific Research Foundation of Shanghai Local High-Level University Construction Project–Evidence-based Nursing Innovation Research Institute: Multi-center evidence-based innovation practice project (No. FNDGJ201904).

Data Sharing Statement

Institutional review board statement.

The data utilized in this study are publicly accessible and do not contain protected health information. Therefore, no approval was sought from the Ethics Committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this work.

Topic Guide - Developing Your Research Study

• Purpose of Guide
• 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
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• APA 7th Edition
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework

Importance of Theory

Strategies for developing the theoretical framework, structure and writing style, writing tip, another writing tip, yet another writing tip, still yet another writing tip.

• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• 10. Proofreading Your Paper
• Writing Concisely
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Study
• Writing a Research Proposal
• 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 bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists.

Abend, Gabriel. "The Meaning of Theory." Sociological Theory 26 (June 2008): 173–199; Swanson, Richard A. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines . San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2013.

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.

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; 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.

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.

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.

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

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.

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.

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 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.

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 may 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,
• The study reveals a finding that is significantly incongruent 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 [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: Mar 22, 2022 8:49 AM
• URL: https://leeuniversity.libguides.com/research_study_guide

Home » Education » What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

What is the Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

Literature review and theoretical framework are two indispensable components of research . Both are equally important for the foundation of a research study.

Key Areas Covered

1.  What is Literature Review       – Definition, Features 2.  What is Theoretical Framework      – Definition, Features 3.  Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework      – Comparison of Key Differences

What is a Literature Review

A literature review is a vital component of a research study. A literature review is a discussion on the already existing material in the subject area. Thus, this will require a collection of published (in print or online) work concerning the selected research area. In other words, a literature review is a review of the literature in the related subject area. A literature review makes a case for the research study. It analyzes the existing literature in order to identify and highlight a gap in the literature.

Moreover, a good literature review is a critical discussion, displaying the writer’s knowledge of relevant theories and approaches and awareness of contrasting arguments. A literature review should have the following features (Caulley, 1992)

• Compare and contrast different researchers’ views
• Identify areas in which researchers are in disagreement
• Group researchers who have similar conclusions
• Criticize the  methodology
• Highlight exemplary studies
• Highlight gaps in research
• Indicate the connection between your study and previous studies
• Indicate how your study will contribute to the literature in general
• Conclude by summarizing what the literature indicates

Furthermore, the structure of a literature review is similar to that of an article or essay . Overall, literature reviews help researchers to evaluate the existing literature, identify a gap in the research area, place their study in the existing research and identify future research.

What is a Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is the research component that introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists. It is also the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill the research gap identified by the literature review. Moreover, it is the structure that holds the structure of the research theory.

The researcher may not easily find the theoretical framework within the literature. Therefore, he or she may have to go through many research studies and course readings for theories and models relevant to the research problem under investigation. In addition, the theory must be selected based on its relevance, ease of application, and explanatory power.

Difference Between Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

A literature review is a critical evaluation of the existing published work in a selected research area, while a theoretical framework is a component in research that introduces and describes the theory behind the research problem.

Moreover, the literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under investigation in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap. Therefore, a literature review is backwards-looking while theory framework is forward-looking.

In conclusion, the main difference between literature review and theoretical framework is their function. The literature review explores what has already been written about the topic under study in order to highlight a gap, whereas the theoretical framework is the conceptual and analytical approach the researcher is going to take to fill that gap.

1. Caulley, D. N. “Writing a critical review of the literature.” La Trobe University: Bundoora (1992). 2. “ Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework .” Research Guide.

Image Courtesy:

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Theoretical Framework, Literature Review, and Contributions

• First Online: 05 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Zahid Mumtaz 2  

129 Accesses

The chapter establishes a theoretical justification and identifies gaps in the literature to formulate the two research questions of the study. It also explains the study's contributions attained through answering the research questions. The chapter organisation is as follows: part one of the chapter provides the theoretical framework guiding this study. This part starts with a discussion on the Esping-Andersen’s seminal work entitled “Three worlds of welfare capitalism”, followed by a critique on his work. Later, this part describes how Gough et al. extended Esping-Andersen’s work to develop a global welfare regime framework for examining social policy outside high income industrialized countries. The global welfare regime theoretical framework is discussed in order to identify the role of the community within the institutional responsibility matrix (IRM) in shaping the welfare outcomes. This will provide a theoretical justification for the formulation of the first research question, i.e. the role of religious organizations, a form of community, in realizing the welfare needs of the poor in a developing country context. Part two of the chapter provides a literature review on the welfare regime framework to identify gaps in the literature and to develop two research questions. The last part of the chapter offers the contributions of the research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

In Chap. 8 , these nine elements of “Global Welfare Regime model” are explained in Pakistan’s context.

See for example, Wood and Gough ( 2006 ), Surender and Walker ( 2013 ), Ratigan ( 2017 ), Tillin ( 2021 ), Amoah ( 2020 ), etc.

In the recent special issue of the journal “Social Policy and Society” on global welfare regimes, the topic is discussed at length. Hence the discussion in the study largely draws upon the special issue.

Further details are provided in Chaps. 4 and 7 .

Abu Sharkh, M., & Gough, I. (2010). Global welfare regimes: A cluster analysis. Global Social Policy, 10 (1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018109355035 .

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Currency .

Google Scholar  

Amoah, P. A. (2020). Examining attitudes towards welfare in an in/security regime: Evidence from Ghana.  Social Policy and Society, 1–16.

Aspalter, C. (2012). Real-typical and ideal-typical methods in comparative social policy. In Bent Greve (Ed.). Routledge handbook of the welfare state .

Aspalter, C. (2018). Real-typical and ideal-typical methods in comparative social policy. In B. Greve (Ed.), Routledge handbook of the welfare state (pp. 314–328). Taylor and Francis Group.

Aspalter, C. (2017). Ten worlds of welfare capitalism: An ideal type perspective. In C. Aspalter (Ed.). The Routledge international handbook to welfare state systems (pp. 15–40). Taylor and Francis Group.

Aspalter, C. (2019). Welfare regime analysis: 30 years in the making. International Social Work, 62 (1), 76–88.

Armingeon, K. (2021). Intergovernmental organizations. In D. Béland, S. Leibfried, K. J. Morgan, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Arts, A. W., & Gelissen, J. (2010). Models of the welfare state. In F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state . Oxford University Press.

Bambra, C. (2006). Research Note: Decommodification and the worlds of welfare revisited. Journal of European Social Policy , 16 (1), 73–80.

Bambra, C. (2007). Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16 (4), 326–338.

Barrientos, A. (2009). Labour markets and the (hyphenated) welfare regime in Latin America. Economy and Society, 38 (1), 87–108.

Bernhard, E. (2021). Unions and employers. In D. Béland, S. Leibfried, K. J. Morgan, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Bevan, P. (2004). Conceptualising in/security regimes in insecurity and welfare regimes. In I. Gough, & G. Wood (Eds.), with A. Barrientos, P. Bevan, P. Davis, & G. Room, Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America (pp. 88–120). Cambridge University Press.

Bilecen, B., & Barglowski, K. (2015). On the assemblages of informal and formal transnational social protection.  Population, Space and Place, 21 (3), 203–214.

Böger, T., & Öktem, K. G. (2019). Levels or worlds of welfare? Assessing social rights and social stratification in Northern and Southern countries. Social Policy and Administration, 53 , 63–77.

Bonoli, G. (1997). Classifying welfare states: A two‐dimension approach. Journal of Social Policy, 26 (3), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279497005059 .

Cammett, M., & Sasmaz, A. (2016). Social policy in developing countries. In O. Fioretos, T. G. Falleti, & A. Sheingate (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism . Oxford University Press.

Castles, F., & Mitchell, D. (1992). Identifying welfare state regimes: The links between politics, instruments and outcomes. Governance, 5 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1992.tb00026.x .

Castles, G. F., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H., & Pierson, C. (2010). Introduction. In F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state . Oxford University Press.

Cerami, A. (2013). Permanent emergency welfare regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa: The exclusive origins of dictatorship and democracy . Palgrave Macmillan.

Choi, Y. J. (2012). End of the era of productivist welfare capitalism? Diverging welfare regimes in East Asia. Asian Journal of Social Science, 40 (3), 275–294.

Choi, Y. J. (2013). Developmentalism and productivism in East Asian welfare regime. In M. Izuhara (Ed.), The Handbook on East Asian Social Policy (pp. 207–225). Edward Elgar.

Clement, J. (2020). Social protection clusters in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Social Welfare, 29 , 20–28.

Cruz-Martínez, G. (2018). A Bottom-up picture of intra-national welfare regimes: The case of marginalised communities in Puerto Rico. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 36 (2), 175–199.

Danforth, B. (2014). Worlds of welfare in time: A historical reassessment of the three-world typology. Journal of European Social Policy, 24 , 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928713517919 .

Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (2017). Politics, economics, and welfare . Routledge.

Emmenegger, P., Kvist, J., Marx, P., & Petersen, K. (2015). Three worlds of welfare capitalism: The making of a classic. Journal of European Social Policy, 25 (1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928714556966 .

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism . Polity Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies . Oxford University Press.

Ferragina, E., Seeleib-Kaiser, M., & Tomlinson, M. (2012). Unemployment protection and family policy at the turn of the 21st century. Social Policy and Administration, 47 (7), 783–805.

Franzoni, J. M. (2008). Welfare regimes in Latin America: Capturing constellations of markets, families, and policies. Latin American Politics and Society, 50 , 67–100.

Giraudy, A., & Pribble, J. (2019). Rethinking measures of democracy and welfare state universalism: Lessons from subnational research. Regional and Federal Studies, 29 (2), 135–163.

Gough, I (1999). Welfare regimes: On adapting the framework to developing countries. Discourse: A Journal of Policy Studies, 3 (1), 1–18.

Gough, I., Wood, G., Barrientos, A., Bevan, P., Room, G., & Davis, P. (2004).  Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social policy in development contexts . Cambridge University Press.

Gough, I., Wood, G., Barrientos, A., Bevan, P., Davis, P., & Room, G. (2004a). Welfare regimes in development contexts : A global and regional analysis. In  Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social policy in development contexts (pp. 15–48). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720239.003 .

Gough, I., Wood, G., Barrientos, A., Bevan, P., Davis, P., & Room, G. (2004b). Informal security regimes: The strength of relationships. In  Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social policy in development contexts (pp. 49–87). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720239.004 .

Gough, I., Wood, G., Barrientos, A., Bevan, P., Davis, P., & Room, G. (2004c). Conceptualising in/security regimes. In  Insecurity and welfare regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America: Social policy in development contexts  (pp. 88–118). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720239.005 .

Gough, I., & Therborn, G. (2010). The global future of welfare states. In C. Pierson, F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, H. Obinger, & J. Lewis (Eds.) (pp. 741–758). Oxford University Press.

Gough, I. (2013). Social policy regimes in the developing world. In P. Kennett (Ed.), A Handbook of comparative social policy (pp. 205–224). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham UK.

Greve, B. (2008). What is welfare? Central European Journal of Public Policy, 2 (01), 50–73.

Greve, B. (2014).  Welfare and the welfare state: Present and future .

Greve, B. (2018). What is welfare and public welfare. In B. Greve, (Ed.) Routledge handbook of the welfare state (pp. 115–124). Taylor and Francis Group.

Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination (pp. 41–50).

Hinojosa, V. L., Bebbington, A., Barrientos, A., & Addison, A. (2010). Social policy and state revenues in mineral-rich contexts. Social Policy and Development Programme Paper Number 44, UNRISD.

Immergut, M. E. (2021). Political Institutions. In D. Béland, S. Leibfried, K. J. Morgan, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Isakjee, A. (2017). Welfare state regimes: A literature review (IRiS Working Paper Series, No. 18/2017) (UPWEB Working Paper Series, No. 5/2017). Institute for Research into Superdiversity.

Kangas, O. (1994). The politics of social security. In T. Janoski, & A. Hicks (Eds.), The comparative political economy of the welfare state (pp. 346–364). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174053.015 .

Kasza, G. J. (2002). The illusion of welfare ‘regimes.’ Journal of Social Policy, 31 (2), 271–287.

Kersbergen V. K. (2018). What are welfare state typologies and how useful are they, if at all? In B. Greve (Ed.), Routledge handbook of the welfare state (pp. 5–12). Taylor and Francis Group.

Kersbergen, V. K., & Manow, P. (2021). Religion. In D. Béland, S. Leibfried, K. J. Morgan, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Kuhlmann, J (2018). What is a welfare state? In B. Greve (Ed.), Routledge handbook of the welfare state (pp. 2–22). Taylor and Francis Group.

Kühner, S., & Nakray, K. (2017). ‘India’s emerging social policy paradigm: Productive, protective or what? Journal of Asian Public Policy, 10 (1), 40–56.

Kuypers, S. (2014) The East Asian welfare regime: Reality or fiction (CSB Working paper, 14, 4).

Lewis, D. (2013). Building the welfare mix or sidelining the state? Non-governmental organizations in developing countries as social policy actors. In R. Walker & R. Surender (Eds.), Social policy in a developing world (pp. 58–80). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Leyer, R. V. (2020). Has social policy expansion in Latin America reduced welfare decommodification and defamilialisation? Evidence from an overview of the Mexican welfare regime. Social Policy and Society, 19 (4), 645–659.

Mahoney, J. (2010). Colonialism and postcolonial development: Spanish America in comparative perspective . Cambridge University Press.

Mažeikienė, N., Naujanienė, R., & Ruškus, J. (2014). What is mixed in welfare mix? Welfare ideologies at stake in the Lithuanian case of social service delivery. European Journal of Social Work, 17 (5), 641–655.

Mares, I., & Carnes, M. E. (2009). Social policy in developing countries. Annual Review of Political Science, 12 , 93–113.

Martínez Franzoni, J., & Sánchez-Ancochea, D. (2018). Undoing segmentation? Latin American health care policy during the economic boom. Social Policy and Administration, 52 , 1181–1200.

Manow, P. (2021). Models of the welfare state. In D. Béland, S. Leibfried, K. J. Morgan, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Mkandawire, T. (2016). Colonial Legacies and Social Welfare Regimes in Africa; An Empirical Exercise, Working Paper 2016-4, Geneva: UNRISD.

Mkandawire, T. (2020). Colonial legacies and social welfare regimes in Africa: An empirical exercise. In  The politics of domestic resource mobilization for social development  (pp. 139–172). Palgrave Macmillan

Orloff, S.A., & Laperrière, M. (2021). Gender. In D. Béland, S. Leibfried, K. J. Morgan, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Obinger, H., & Wagschal, U. (2001). Families of nations and public policy. West European Politics, 24 , 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380108425419

Papadopoulos, T., & Roumpakis, A. (2017). Family as a socio-economic actor in the political economies of East and South East Asian welfare capitalisms. Social Policy and Administration, 51 (6), 857–875.

Pellissery, S. (2013). The informal economy: Dilemmas and policy responses. In R. Walker & R. Surender (Eds.), Social policy in a developing world (pp. 81–100). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pigou, A. C., & Aslanbeigui, N. (2017). The economics of welfare . Routledge.

Pinker, R. (2019). The idea of welfare . Routledge.

Põder, K., & Kerem, K. (2011). Social models in a European comparison. Eastern European Economics, 49 (5), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.2753/EEE0012-8775490503 .

Powell, M., Yörük, E., & Bargu, A. (2020). Thirty years of the three worlds of welfare capitalism: A review of reviews. Social Policy and Administration, 54 (1), 60–87.

Ragin, C. (1994). A qualitative comparative analysis of pension systems. In T. Janoksi & A. Hicks (Eds.), The comparative political economy of the welfare state (pp. 320–345). Cambridge University Press.

Ratigan, K. (2017). Disaggregating the developing welfare state: Provincial social policy regimes in China. World Development, 98 , 467–484.

Roumpakis, A., & Sumarto, M. (2020). Introduction: Global welfare regimes revisited.  Social Policy and Society, 19 (4), 585–588. Important all the articles of the issues.

Roumpakis, A. (2020). Revisiting global welfare regime classifications. Social Policy and Society, 19 (4), 589–612.

Rudra, N. (2007). Welfare states in developing countries: Unique or universal? The Journal of Politics, 69 (2), 378–396.

Saint-Arnaud, S., & Bernard, P. (2003). Convergence or resilience? A hierarchical cluster analysis of the welfare regimes in advanced countries. Current Sociology, 51 (5), 499–527.

Satyro, N. G. D., & Cunha, P. S. (2019). The coexistence of different welfare regimes in the same country: A comparative analysis of the Brazilian municipalities heterogeneity. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 21 , 65–89.

Schröder, M. (2009). Integrating welfare and production typologies: How refinements of the varieties of capitalism approach call for a combination of welfare typologies. Journal of Social Policy, 38 (1), 19–43.

Schubert, K., De Villota, P., & Kuhlmann, J. (2016). Challenges to European welfare systems . Springer.

Shalev, M. (1996). The privatization of social policy? Occupational welfare and the welfare state in America, Scandinavia, and Japan . Palgrave Macmillan.

Surender, R., & Walker, R. (2013). Social policy in a developing world . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Surender, R. (2013). Introduction. In R. Walker, R. Surender (Eds.),  Social policy in a developing world (pp. 3–13). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849809931

Tillin, L. (2021). Does India have subnational welfare regimes? The role of state governments in shaping social policy.  Territory, Politics, Governance , 1–17.

UNDP. (2021). Pakistan National Human Development Report 2020 The three Ps of inequality: Power, people, and policy, Islamabad: UNDP. Accessible at https://www.pk.undp.org/content/pakistan/en/home/library/human-development-reports/PKNHDR-inequality.html/ . Retrieved June 2021.

Van der Veen, R., & Van der Brug, W. (2013). Three worlds of social insurance: On the validity of Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime dimensions. British Journal of Political Science, 43 (2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123412000257

Vetterlein, A. (2013). The role of the world bank and the international monetary fund in poverty reduction: Limits of policy change In Robert Walker. In R. Surender (Ed.), Social policy in a developing world (pp. 37–56). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Witvliet, M., Arah, O., Stronks, K., & Kunst, A. E. (2011). Taking welfare state regime research globally: An application of the Wood and Gough typology to individual health. Social Theory and Health, 9 , 355–366.

Wood, G., & Gough, I. (2006). A comparative welfare regime approach to global social policy. World Development, 34 (10), 1696–1712.

Yang, N. (2017). East Asia in transition: Re-examining the East Asian welfare model using fuzzy sets. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 10 (1), 104–120.

Yang, N., & Kühner, S. (2020). Beyond the limits of the productivist regime: Capturing three decades of East Asian welfare development with fuzzy sets. Social Policy and Society . https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474641900054X

Yu, W. K. (2014). Studying the health care systems in seven East Asian countries by the cluster analysis. Development and Society, 43 (1), 81–107.

Zutavern, J., & Kohli, M. (2021). Needs and risks in the welfare state. In D. Béland, S. Leibfried, K. J. Morgan, H. Obinger, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Zahid Mumtaz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Mumtaz, Z. (2022). Theoretical Framework, Literature Review, and Contributions. In: Informal Social Protection and Poverty. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6474-9_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6474-9_2

Published : 05 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-6473-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-6474-9

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (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

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Models of Disability as Research Frameworks in Biology Education Research

• Mason N. Tedeschi
• Lisa B. Limeri

*Address correspondence to: Mason N. Tedeschi ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).

Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409

Search for more papers by this author

Advancing equity and justice in undergraduate biology education requires research to address the experiences of disabled students. Scholars working in disability studies have developed models of disability that inform Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER). To date, DBER literature has been predominantly informed by the medical and social models of disability. The medical model focuses on challenges that affect people with disabilities on an individual basis, while the social model focuses on how one's surrounding environment contributes to the construction of disability. In this essay, we discuss past DBER research and opportunities for future research using each of these models. We will also discuss a third, less commonly used model that offers exciting opportunities to drive future research: complex embodiment. Complex embodiment positions disability as a social location that reflects a greater societal value structure. Further examining this value structure reveals how ability itself is constructed and conventionally understood to be hierarchical. Additionally, we explain epistemic injustice as it affects disabled people, and how future education research can both address and counteract this injustice. We discuss how expanding the frameworks that serve as lenses for DBER scholarship on disability will offer new research directions.

INTRODUCTION

In western society, the concept of “normal” as it applies to human beings emerged in the nineteenth century ( Davis, 2002 ). This included the idea that it is most desirable for bodies and cognition to fall within the average range of variation. The concept of “normal” led to a standard that made it compulsory for people to behave or appear as though they embody this average to participate in society ( Thomson, 1997 ). This standard has shaped our modern notions of disability.

impacts one's functioning in their daily life, often presenting needs that are considered to be nonstandard ( World Health Organization, 1980 ; Schuntermann, 1996 ),

creates a mismatch between one's abilities and the expectations placed on them ( Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1974 ; Thomas, 2004 ), or

impacts their opportunity to fully participate in a given setting ( Snyder and Mitchell, 2006 ; Toro et al. , 2020 ).

Some communities labeled outside of the statistical average have also developed a cultural boundary. For example, many in the Deaf community share a cultural identity that is distinct from disability ( Braun et al. , 2017 ). Those identifying with Deaf culture may or may not also identify as disabled. Another example is the National Federation of the Blind, a community that creates a social dynamic in which blindness is simply a physical characteristic lacking any negative stigma, fostering an empowering identity ( Colvert, 2000 ).

Scholars have conceptualized different “models” of disability which have shaped research directions and research questions about disability and disabled people. Based on our review of Disability Studies literature and Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) literature, we have identified two models that have been most influential in shaping DBER: the medical model and the social model. In this review, we will explore how these predominant models of disability have influenced past research directions and describe opportunities for future research directions using the perspectives offered by each model. Our review does not encompass a comprehensive list of all ways scholars have conceptualized disability, but focuses on theoretical models that either have guided research questions or align with the expressed goals of research questions in recent DBER literature. Additionally, we will highlight the potential for disability theories deriving from feminist standpoint theory to guide future research in DBER. Throughout this review, we highlight how expanding the theoretical models that guide DBER scholarship on disability has the potential to move the field into new research directions.

The Medical Model of Disability

The medical model of disability, also known as the biomedical model, arose from the relationship between clinician and patient ( Laing, 1971 ; Bury, 1997 ; Hogan, 2019 ). Within this model, a patient would describe a condition, usually causing them some kind of limitation or distress. A clinician would then aim to understand the physical factors contributing to the condition in order to provide a treatment. Importantly, the medical model specifically pertains to conditions that the patient and clinician both consider to be a disease or illness.

Psychiatrists noticed that relying entirely on biomedical expertise was not sufficient to understand illness, especially as it pertained to social issues outside of medicine. In 1956, Thomas Szasz, a practicing psychiatrist, cautioned against treating medical professionals as figures of authority on social issues ( Szasz, 1956 ). In particular, Szasz expressed concern at the idea of applying a biomedical lens to legal matters, such as relying on a psychiatrist's expertise on mental and behavioral states to determine one's culpability in criminal cases. Szasz explained that linking a person's mental health to their culpability could be used to deny them agency. He additionally stated that “Scientific knowledge per se does not embody within itself any guideposts as to its ‘best’ or ‘most humanitarian’ utilization, much as we would like to believe this” ( Szasz, 1956 , p. 298).

In 1977, another psychiatrist named George Engel identified shortcomings of the biomedical model even in the context of medical treatment ( Engel, 1977 ). Engel advocated for an updated medical model to rely not solely on the biological factors contributing to illness but to include psychological and social factors as well. Engel argued that, while biological factors are relevant, additional considerations such as trauma, living conditions, income, and social support are all essential for providing adequate treatment. While the importance of these factors was particularly apparent to those in psychiatry, Engel advocated for extending these nuances to every branch of medicine ( Engel, 1977 ). Engel acknowledged the differences in contexts provided by individual patients’ experiences. He wrote that whether a condition should be classified as a disease depended on the experience of the patient, and that two people receiving the same diagnosis could have different enough experiences that the answer could vary between each of them. Engel's version of the medical model is used today to address various psychiatric concerns, such as substance abuse ( Wangensteen and Hystad, 2022 ). In 1980, the World Health Organization (WHO) used the medical model to provide separate definitions for impairment versus disability ( Schuntermann, 1996 ). According to the WHO, an impairment refers to a physical or mental characteristic that is an outlier from the statistical average, while a disability refers to limits in functionality resulting from the impairment. Today, the medical model is frequently referenced in disability scholarship and activism, affecting many of the policies that impact disabled people, including in education ( Price, 2011 ; Dolmage, 2017 ; Hogan, 2019 ).

The Social Model of Disability

The need for a disability framework outside the scope of medicine led to the development of the social model of disability. In 1974, a British activist group known as the Union for the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) advocated for a different approach to understanding how disabilities present challenges to people ( Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1974 , 1975). They referred to physical conditions that may affect one's health or day to day life as impairments , and defined disability solely as the social exclusion imposed on those with impairments. According to the social model, it is these imposed barriers that limit people's opportunities to participate in society, such as accessing education and employment opportunities. UPIAS used these definitions of disability and impairment to argue for increasing legal rights of disabled people and removing socially-imposed barriers. In the United States, the social model played a strong role in activist efforts. The social model corresponds with the disability rights movement, which led to legal rights such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects against discrimination against disabled people by those offering public services, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prevents schools receiving federal funding from discriminating on the basis of disability ( Weber, 1994 ; Berghs et al. , 2016 ). The social model of disability entered the scholarly conversation in 1991 when Mike Oliver incorporated it into his book on social work ( Oliver, 1991 ), and then later incorporated it into courses and disability equality training ( Oliver, 2004 ). He provided additional guidelines on how to apply the social model more broadly to research in the social sciences ( Oliver, 2004 ). Alongside the medical model, the social model has been used in education research.

Medical and Social Model Influences on Past DBER

We reviewed past DBER literature on disability and disabled people to analyze how the medical and social model have driven the research questions being asked. To identify the appropriate literature base, we searched within three major science education journals, an education database (Education Source), and Google Scholar ( Table 1 ). We selected search terms related to disability directly (e.g., disability), concepts that often overlap with disability (e.g., neurodiversity, universal design), as well as “STEM” and “undergraduate” to narrow the context ( Table 1 ). We used inclusion criteria to identify papers that 1) are original empirical studies, 2) are contextualized in at least one STEM discipline in higher education, and 3) address research questions focused on either disability or neurodivergence. We identified and reviewed 26 papers, 20 of which were published within the last 5 years.

The medical and social models have influenced past DBER research by shaping the direction and focus of the research questions. In general, research questions based in the medical model focus on the disabled individual and research questions based in the social model focus on the environment surrounding and affecting the disabled individual. In an education context, a medical model approach responds to the particular expressed needs of individual students. These needs are addressed on a case-by-case basis (e.g., via accommodations) rather than changing the overall learning environment. This accommodation system requires disclosure from the students, as medical model solutions cannot be offered without knowing which students have which disabilities. This system presents students who have disclosed disabilities as being distinct from their classmates. On the other hand, the social model draws the focus of research questions to the disabling environmental factors. Solutions based in the social model include creating courses that are accessible to a broad variety of students with a wide range of needs, such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL). By focusing on eliminating barriers present in the overall learning environment, a social model approach shifts the focus to their environment and away from individual students. Implementing social model approaches does not require educators to identify particular students as disabled. Instead, social model solutions provide all students with the same resources.

In DBER, these models do not represent discrete categories of studies or research questions, but rather ends of a spectrum. Inherently, students are situated in some kind of learning environment, so nearly all education research is influenced to some degree by the social model. Disability Resource Centers (DRCs) are an institutional solution providing accommodations on an individual level. Research questions more strongly influenced by the medical model focus on support systems that are set up only for disabled students, such as university DRCs, accommodations, and other types of support that are restricted and targeted to disabled students.

Research questions about DRCs have focused on how they benefit students who access them and how students use accommodations ( Gelbar and Madaus, 2021 ; Gin et al. , 2021 ). Though based primarily in the medical model, these questions still have a social component because these processes are influenced by the surrounding environment. For example, Gelbar and Madaus (2021) examined how students’ use of their accommodations was influenced by whether the courses were in STEM or non-STEM disciplines, and by student factors, including gender, class standing, disability type, and number of disclosed disabilities. The focus on how students vary in their use of accommodations draws from the medical model, but the recognition that context, such as the type of course, may influence students’ need for resources draws from the social model. Similarly, Gin and colleagues ( 2021 ) examined how the changes brought about by COVID and the abrupt transition to online learning influenced students’ experiences accessing accommodations. For the most part, this study's focus on individual student accommodations utilized the medical model. Its focus on the COVID pandemic as a more largely disruptive event, however, is influenced by the social model, due to its recognition of how external factors can be disabling.

Along with research on how students use accommodations, the medical model is also present in research about how students self-advocate. Pfeifer and colleagues ( 2020 ) used an established conceptual framework to develop a model of self-advocacy for undergraduate STEM majors diagnosed with either attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a specific learning disorder (SLD, an umbrella term including diagnoses previously known as dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia). The framework defined self-advocacy as a skillset consisting of knowledge of one's own strengths and needs, knowledge of one's legal rights, communication, and leadership in advocating for others ( Test et al. , 2005 ). Pfeifer and colleagues characterized how these students reported using self-advocacy skills. This study takes an asset-based approach to the medical model by highlighting the self-advocacy skills that disabled students develop to navigate the system of accommodations. Their continued work, however, applied this model to research questions influenced more by the social model. Their following study (2021) investigated the factors in undergraduate STEM classrooms that impacted self-advocacy of students with ADHD and/or SLD.

Other DBER studies on disability based partially in the medical model examine support resources that are specifically for disabled students but are outside of the regulations of DRCs. The programs mentioned in these studies were designed only for disabled students, to support their persistence in STEM. Separating these students as a distinct group and aiming to mitigate their challenges on an individual basis contains aspects of the medical model, but the programs aimed to provide students with social support to counteract academic exclusion, a goal that is more reminiscent of the social model. One example is the MIND Alliance program, a comprehensive mentoring and training program specifically for disabled students from two Minority-Serving Institutions ( Dutta et al. , 2015 ; Cardoso et al. , 2016 ). Researchers assessed how students benefitted from this program; their questions were based in the medical model because the program was specifically and exclusively for disabled students ( Dutta et al. , 2015 ; Cardoso et al. , 2016 ). Other examples include researchers assessing how students benefit from participating in a virtual mentoring program ( Gregg et al. , 2016 ) and a peer mentorship program ( Dunn et al. , 2021 ), both specifically designed for disabled students.

Research questions based more strongly in the social model emphasize factors that are experienced by all students and how they specifically impact disabled students, such as student research experiences and active learning classrooms. Several studies have investigated disabled students’ experiences in research. For example, Gin and colleagues ( 2022 ) examined how disabled students in the life sciences are uniquely impacted by undergraduate research experiences and the challenges and opportunities that they experience in these contexts. They documented the strengths disabled students bring to their research projects and the ways they benefit from the experience. This research is largely based in the social model because the undergraduate research experience being studied was available to all students, not specifically disabled students, and thus a general part of the context that disabled students navigate. It is also partially based in the medical model because its focus includes the internal factors that contribute to disability (examples included challenges students experienced with chronic pain, mental health, focus, and attention). Similarly, Zaghi and colleagues ( 2023 ) examined the impact of undergraduate research experiences specifically for students with ADHD. This study asked students in an engineering Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program to compare their REU experience with their previous academic experiences. Because researchers focused on ways different environments created different learning experiences for the same students, the study strongly used the social model.

Another commonly studied evidence-based practice is active learning. Because active learning is becoming increasingly prevalent in college STEM courses, researchers have worked to understand how it impacts disabled students specifically. Expanding on their previous self-advocacy work, Pfeifer and colleagues ( 2023 ) investigated how different active learning practices influenced disabled students’ perceptions of their learning experiences, as well as their self-advocacy. These research questions align more with the social model since the focus is on the effects of particular teaching practices that are experienced by everyone in the class. Gin and colleagues ( 2020 ) aimed to answer similar questions by interviewing DRC directors about challenges experienced by disabled students in courses that used active learning practices, as well as changes to the accommodation process for courses using active learning. The focus on accommodations derives from the medical model since it includes the role of internal disabling factors in its analysis. The focus mostly remains, however, on the classroom practices that affect student experiences. Thus, this study draws heavily from the social model, while recognizing the role of the medical model in determining the resources available to students.

The social model has a very strong presence in education research focusing on UDL. Universal design draws from architectural principles following the Americans with Disabilities Act, in which buildings were designed to be accessible to as many different people as possible ( Silver et al. , 1998 ). UDL applies this principle to course design. UDL implores instructors to account for as many different access needs as possible when designing a course. UDL principles include providing multiple means of engagement, representation, action, and expression. For example, a course designed in alignment with UDL might provide content in multiple formats and give students multiple ways to be assessed on their work ( Center for Applied Special Technology, 2024 ; Rose, 2001 ; Rose and Meyer, 2002 ). Disability scholars have encouraged instructors to use UDL principles to develop potential strategies to increase accessibility in their courses ( Dolmage, 2015 ). The creators of UDL have provided examples of how they used it in a graduate level education course with a neuroscience-focused curriculum. For example, they explain that they give students the option to purchase a textbook that relies more heavily on visual information versus one that relies more on text, with both books providing the same information ( Rose et al. , 2006 ).

UDL has been featured in professional development created for college instructors in the sciences ( Moon et al. , 2011 ; Orndorf et al. , 2022 ). DBER scholars have worked to provide UDL recommendations that are tailored to specific types of courses; for example Miller and Lang (2016) focus their recommendations on chemistry lab courses, while Balta and colleagues ( 2021 ) provide suggestions for implementing UDL in medical anatomy courses.

UDL recommendations inspired a study by Büdy and colleagues ( 2021 ), who developed an online nonmajors chemistry course and assessed the experiences of students who self-identified as neurodivergent. The authors defined neurodivergent as “having a brain that functions in ways that diverge significantly from the dominant societal standards of ‘normal.’” Neurodivergent identity also included those with diagnosed and undiagnosed learning disabilities. The course used a number of UDL principles. For example, they allowed students to use a variety of communication modalities, including verbal, written, symbolic (which included use of emojis, diagrams, formulas, drawing), and nonverbal (which included body language and facial expressions). Each week, students were asked to choose between participating synchronously or asynchronously and indicate that choice. The course also included a variety of assessment types and flexible deadlines.

The researchers compared the self-reported class experiences of students who identified as neurodivergent with those who did not. The UDL design and focus of the research questions on how disabled students experience their learning environment are heavily influenced by the social model.

Critiques of the Medical and Social Models

Many theorists have critiqued the medical model. Some disability theorists have claimed that in our current higher education system, accommodations are “something that always needs to be created, something that has a cost” ( Dolmage, 2017 , p. 53). They argue this structure positions disabled students not as rightful participants in the classroom, but as beneficiaries ( Vidali, 2007 ). Instead, they advocate for considering the needs of disabled participants in academic settings at the outset, building access into their design ( Oliver, 2004 ; Dolmage, 2017 ). Meanwhile, education researchers have noted that students face challenges not just due to their disabilities, but also stemming from the history that academic institutions have in excluding disabled students ( Shpigelman et al. , 2022 ). The social model of disability has arisen in response to these critiques, placing emphasis on the system and social structure that constructs disability.

The social model of disability has created fruitful avenues for research but has also been critiqued. One critique is that separating disability from impairment conflicts with the experiences of some disabled people, for example those with chronic conditions ( Williams, 1999 ). For many, their embodied experience contributes to the factors that disable them, and they would still consider themselves disabled in a world where all socially inflicted barriers were removed ( Morris, 1991 ; French, 1993 ). Others have argued that this separation defines disability entirely as oppression—in other words, that to be disabled is to be oppressed ( Thomas, 1999 ; Shakespeare, 2013 ). UPIAS's list of “fundamental principles” went as far as to call for the “elimination” of disability ( Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1975 , 3). In this way, the social model makes it difficult to acknowledge ways disability can contribute to one's identity and experiences ( Thomas, 1999, 2004 ; Williams, 1999 ). Defining disability as inseparable from oppression leaves no room to imagine a better world in which disabled people are still present. According to these scholars, the social model positions a world with no barriers and therefore no disability as a goal, which excludes anyone for whom this would not be reality, even in the most idealized scenario ( Bury, 1997 ; Shakespeare, 2013 ). Disability researcher Tom Shakespeare claims that the social model uses a simplistic explanation to emphasize the importance of creating better accessibility and inclusion for disabled people ( Shakespeare, 2013 ). From Shakespeare's perspective, this simplicity is an effective entry point for change but does not fully communicate the nuances experienced by the community its creators sought to serve.

To address these critiques, Carol Thomas proposed the social relational model ( Thomas, 2004 ). The social relational model has many similarities to the social model but emphasizes how impairments affect people's experiences. Thomas defined impairments as individual characteristics, including “physical, sensory, intellectual, cognitive, [and] behavioral” that have been “socially marked as unacceptable bodily deviation” ( Thomas, 2004 , p. 41). According to this definition, impairments themselves are embodied differences between people, and exist outside of social constructs. However, Thomas states that understandings of impairments, including from biological perspectives, are still shaped by social understanding. The social relational model of disability calls for a recognition of internal factors in conjunction with the social, and therefore defines disability as an interplay between these factors.

The social relational model has been used in a recent science education research study, to understand the characteristics that undergraduate physics and chemistry students with ADHD associated with their diagnoses, and how their courses’ structures were disabling or supportive of students with these characteristics ( James et al. , 2020 ). These research questions allowed for an exploration of how ADHD affected students outside of just disability, as a cognitive difference that students may experience in positive ways as well as negative. Yet it also emphasized the impact of disabling barriers on these students. Using the social relational model in DBER allows researchers to explore the factors that disable students in matters of both embodiment and environment.

Another model, known as the ecological-enactive model, has been proposed more recently ( Toro et al. , 2020 ). The ecological-enactive model aims to understand not just someone's embodied experience, but also their capacity to use affordances, which are aspects of one's environment that can allow for actions or uses that may benefit someone ( Jurgens, 2023 ; Nešić, 2023 ; Schwab et al. , 2022 ; Toro et al. , 2020 ). The ecological-enactive model defines disability as a misalignment between someone's skillset, which they often form in response to their embodiment, and the affordances available to them. According to this model, whether people are disabled depends on how they are equipped to respond to their environment. Like the social relational model, the ecological-enactive model utilizes both the medical and social models to highlight the relationship between an individual and their surrounding environment. To our knowledge, this model has not yet been cited in education research, but since a spectrum of uses of the medical and social model are present in DBER, the ecological-enactive model could potentially be used in similar research contexts.

All the models we have discussed so far focus on the barriers that disabled people experience. Disability scholars have also noted, however, the importance of centering disabled perspectives more broadly, and recognizing how these perspectives vary ( Dolmage, 2017 ). To address this, theorists have drawn from feminist standpoint theory, specifically the concept of social location.

Standpoint Theory Emphasizes the Importance of Social Location

Standpoint theory focuses on the relative position that individuals inhabit within a power structure. Using standpoint theory as a lens enables disability scholars to highlight the value in the unique knowledge that disabled people gain from their social positioning.

Standpoint theory has its origins in Marxist philosophy. Marx claimed that the proletariat, or the workers, gained knowledge based on their social position in relation to the bourgeoisie, or the ruling class ( Marx, 1852 ). Marx's standpoint theory hinged on the idea that the firsthand knowledge of those in the subjugated group was necessary for conceptualizing a more equitable world.

In the 1980s, feminist theorists expanded standpoint theory to incorporate different personal factors, such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status, that contribute to one's position in prevailing social hierarchies ( Hartsock, 1983 ; Rose, 1983 ; Harding, 1986 ; Haraway, 1988 ; Jaggar, 1989 ). The position someone occupies within the hierarchy is known as their social location, and a self-aware perspective of someone in a nondominant social location is a standpoint. These groups are “defined by… historical, cultural, social, and economic limits” ( Young, 2005 , p. 29). Standpoints are intersectional positions, and knowledge drawing from standpoints is specific to intersecting identities ( Collins, 1998 ). Feminist theorists argue that reaching a self-awareness of one's social location is a conscious process, as those in dominant social locations have a material interest in preventing such self-awareness, even if they are not actively conscious of it ( Hartsock, 1983 ). Thus, being able to draw on knowledge from one's standpoint is not an automatic state of being, but one that requires reflection and benefits from the presence of community ( Hartsock, 1983 ; Haraway, 1988 ; Collins, 1998 ). Knowledge situated in a standpoint provides a foundation of understanding that is necessary to create a better system ( Hartsock, 1983 ). Because there is a wide variety of standpoints, this also means that those in different subjugated groups must also listen to each other to truly envision a better world ( Collins, 1998 ).

Disability as Social Location.

In 2006, Cultural Locations of Disability by Sharon Snyder and David Mitchell gave context to understanding social location in relation to disability. The book focuses on structures and institutions ostensibly created to support disabled people, beginning in the late nineteenth century. In contrast with UPIAS's definition of disability, Snyder and Mitchell “recognize disability as a site of phenomenological value that is not purely synonymous with the process of social disablement” ( Snyder and Mitchell, 2006 , p. 6). This definition views disability as a significant experience that orients one's standpoint, without solely defining disability as oppression. According to Synder and Mitchell, the position disabled people were placed in “precluded one's right to access modes of civic belonging that granted social privileges” ( Snyder and Mitchell, 2006 , p. 39). Snyder and Mitchell's historical account reveals how a system that prioritized people's capacity to produce a certain amount of labor, combined with a push toward adopting more scientific approaches, led to the objectification of disabled bodies. Thus, embodiment that interrupted one's capacity to provide labor for the economy was viewed as tragic. As a product of this viewpoint, both private and public services specifically designed for disabled people arose. To receive care from social services, one had to submit to removal from greater society and an economic status preventing them from securing independence ( Snyder and Mitchell, 2006 ). Those receiving care or support from their family are similarly placed in a position of relying on them ( Snyder and Mitchell, 2006 ; Siebers, 2008 ). This created a structure in which independence could not coexist with receiving support for disabilities. Within this structure, the disclosure of disabled people's needs detracted from outward perceptions of their personhood. Snyder and Mitchell argue that disabled people have been socially and culturally “dislocated,” since the same institutions offering support served to separate disabled people from the rest of society (2006). This system props up a broader cultural value, known as the ideology of ability.

Ideology of Ability.

The ideology of ability is a belief system that conflates perceived ability with personhood, therefore dehumanizing those who are seen as less able ( Siebers, 2008 ). This makes it compulsory for people to display an acceptable range of ability for their humanity to be recognized ( Dolmage, 2017 ). The ideology of ability constructs and places people in “levels” of ability, while cementing a belief that higher ability is inherently superior. For example, a recent CNN article describes people with a genetic trait that makes their sleep cycles shorter than average, about 5 to 6 h a night instead of the average 8 ( LaMotte, 2021 ). The article assumes this trait is inherently advantageous, referring to it as a “gift.” The article references a memory task in which individuals with these shorter sleep cycles were compared with individuals with 8-h sleep cycles who had only gotten 5 h of sleep. The article also assigns those with shorter sleep cycles particular aspects of moral character, such as “determination.” Variance in sleep cycle length could be viewed in a neutral manner. The ideology of ability, however, leads to the conclusion that having the shortest sleep cycle possible is superior. Having less of a need to sleep and more time to spend on productivity becomes categorized as having a higher level of ability. Dominant perceptions of ability level are tied to an idealization of having the fewest needs and the highest productivity possible ( Siebers, 2008 ).

Disability scholars claim that the ideology of ability is ingrained into social norms, and that “ability concerns natural gifts, talents, intelligence, creativity… we are always dreaming about it, but rarely thinking critically about why and how we are dreaming” ( Siebers, 2008 , p. 9). Cultural perceptions of ability are so entangled with our understanding of humanity, that the concept of ability becomes extensive and malleable. Ability is foundational to aspirational messaging within our culture, both on the individual and societal level. Conversely, within the ideology of ability, disability is defined in a very narrow way by one's specific limitations and has the effect of narrowing and limiting one's identity ( Siebers, 2008 ).

The ideology of ability produces the prejudice known as ableism ( Dolmage, 2017 ; Manalili, 2021 ). Ableism is not limited to impacting disabled people, as ableism also manifests as a pervasive emphasis on ability, to the point of glorifying people pushing themselves to the extreme ( Dolmage, 2017 ).

Another consequence of the ideology of ability is the inclination to view disability in one domain as an advantage in another ( Siebers, 2008 ). This inclination is well-meaning, as it motivates asset-based approaches and the acknowledgment of individuals’ strengths. However, it can pose a double-edged sword by promoting the idea that disabled individuals are only valuable if their disabilities are compensated for by “special” abilities. In this way, asset-based approaches to studying disability risk reinforcing the ideology of ability, since from this perspective, a disabled person's deservingness to be in a space relies on their disability presenting some kind of benefit. This gives disabled people a disproportionate burden to compensate for their presence ( Dolmage, 2017 ).

Social Location Contextualizes Embodiment

Some of the strongest critiques of the social model of disability center around a need to understand the embodied experience of disabled people as being distinct from social barriers ( French, 1993 ; Williams, 1999 ; Thomas, 2004 ). These critics have also turned to feminist literature on embodiment for answers ( Siebers, 2008 ).

In her essay “Throwing Like a Girl,” Iris Young (2005) argues that social location impacts how people experience their bodies throughout their lifetimes. As the title suggests, she begins with the example of 5 year old children demonstrating a difference in how one throws a ball that seemed to relate to gender, with girls being less likely to fully extend their bodies before throwing ( Young, 2005 ). Young points out that at this age there are very few physical differences between children of different genders or sexes that would explain this phenomenon, and instead links this difference to that of social location. She explains that those perceived as female or feminine are taught to carry themselves and interact with the world in a way that treats their bodies less as active agents, and more as objects to be protected ( Young, 2005 ). This social conditioning impacts the way people interact with their surroundings and experience their bodies. The social conditioning an individual undergoes indicates their standpoint within society, creating an intersection between embodiment and standpoint theory.

The experiences that disabled people have with embodiment range greatly. Disability is a very diverse concept, and thus embodiment of disability is also very diverse. It would be useful for future study to delve further into the nuances of how different disabled people experience embodiment.

The Complex Embodiment Model of Disability.

Tobin Siebers’ (2008) model of complex embodiment synthesizes key ideas in standpoint theory, the ideology of ability, and embodiment. Complex embodiment is a perspective that recognizes disabling factors resulting both from one's environment and from the body ( Siebers, 2008 ). This theory emphasizes how differences between bodies “belong to the spectrum of human variation, conceived both as variability between individuals and as variability within an individual's life cycle” ( Siebers, 2008 , p. 25). Complex embodiment posits that the embodiment and social location of disability shape one another, and analyzes how socially-imposed barriers reveal large-scale systemic values ( Siebers, 2008 ). For example, if a course is taught in a pedagogically inaccessible way, one may conclude what kinds of students are being implicitly invited to participate in the space, and which students are not. Where the social model offers solutions for inaccessibility, the theory of complex embodiment explores the reason that lack of access was in place to begin with, and its role in reinforcing a particular hierarchy. This perspective “views the economy between social representations and the body not as unidirectional as in the social model, nor nonexistent as in the medical model, but as reciprocal” ( Siebers, 2008 , p. 25).

Potential Avenues for the Complex Embodiment Model in DBER.

Although to our knowledge complex embodiment has not yet been cited in DBER, it relates to many of the questions DBER scholars have asked and has the potential to guide future approaches. Its scope is distinct from the medical and social models because rather than centering on student needs, it would interrogate the social location communicated within learning environments. Hallmarks of a complex embodiment approach would be research questions that focus on how cultural values reveal a power structure that shapes disabled people's academic experiences. Research questions based in complex embodiment can also integrate ideas that relate to the medical and social models, as the power dynamic that places people in a certain social location is often impacted by interactions between internal and external disabling factors. In DBER, research questions focusing on the perspectives and experiences of instructors supporting disabled students, the impacts of cultural norms within STEM on disabled people, and barriers to the participation of disabled people in STEM all relate to this greater power dynamic.

We have gained insight about how instructors shape the social location of disabled students through studies that examine the impact of instructors’ perspectives ( Love et al. , 2014 ; Bettencourt et al. , 2018 ; Shmulsky et al. , 2018 ; Gokool-Baurhoo and Asghar, 2019 ; Goodwin et al. , 2024 ). Instructors’ decisions create and reinforce social locations for their students by shaping their learning environments. Instructors themselves operate within a set social location determined by their academic institution and the cultures of their disciplines.

Some studies have focused on variation in instructors’ knowledge and perspectives toward disability. For example, some have characterized how STEM faculty describe their positive and negative experiences working with disabled students ( Love et al. , 2014 ). This research question highlights the way instructors’ perceptions impacted the power dynamic between instructors and disabled students. There has also been research exploring how STEM faculty conceptualize disabilities and understand the support needs of disabled students. This question reveals instructors’ perceptions of their own social locations, as well as about how STEM programs impacted disability ( Bettencourt et al. , 2018 ). Another study that took place at a liberal arts college they described as “serv[ing] students who learn differently” aimed to learn what college STEM faculty viewed were necessary skills for success in STEM fields, and what they perceived as particular strengths and challenges experienced by autistic students in STEM ( Shmulsky et al. , 2018 ). This question focused on how instructors conceptualized the values within their disciplines, and the extent to which they viewed those values to be compatible with the success of autistic students. Thus, the research questions emphasize the connection between an instructor's culturally informed perceptions and the social locations into which they place their students. The connection between instructors’ personal and overarching cultural values was further explored by Goodwin and colleagues ( 2024 ), who studied the extent to which instructors valued a responsibility to successfully provide accommodations to their disabled students. This research question examines how instructors’ values may echo the values of their discipline or institution, and how they ultimately affect the social locations of their students ( Goodwin et al. , 2024 ).

Studies focusing on instructor perspectives also reveal how institutional factors reinforce social locations of disabled students. Past DBER studies have focused on the resources available to instructors, tenure and promotion incentives, and the cultures of their institutions or departments. This includes studies that identified the resources STEM faculty needed to support the needs of disabled students ( Love et al. , 2014 ), as well as those focusing on the barriers and challenges experienced by science instructors in teaching and supporting students who had been diagnosed with learning disabilities ( Gokool-Baurhoo and Asghar, 2019 ). Focusing on how instructors’ actions could be influenced by resources provided to them to serve their students’ needs shows the complexity of instructors’ roles. These research questions highlight how instructors may or may not have access to opportunities that are essential to their ability to support their disabled students, regardless of their own personal motivations and values. This scope allows researchers to focus on how disabled students become placed in a particular social location not just by instructors directly, but through factors that limit their instructors as well. Other research questions have examined how the tenure and promotion policies of the institution communicate values related to supporting disabled students, which influence instructors. Instructors, in turn, experience a conflict between any desire to spend time gaining this knowledge and the need to prioritize tasks that would help them to achieve tenure and promotion. This discrepancy reveals a structural issue, where in many institutions, gaining knowledge of disability is positioned as an extra task, rather than one central to their primary job ( Bettencourt et al. , 2018 ). Another recent study investigated the extent to which life sciences faculty at R1 institutions across the United States believed they could successfully provide accommodations to disabled students ( Goodwin et al. , 2024 ). This research question draws the focus to the overall power structure influencing instructors and the dynamic they create with their students. This question highlights the social location of life sciences instructors, and the impact it has on students’ being able to access accommodations.

Many studies have centered the impact of discrimination, ableism, and stigma on disabled students’ affective outcomes. These phenomena all result from the presence of the ideology of ability in STEM disciplines. DBER that reveals the stigma toward disability deconstructs the cultural norms present in STEM higher education. Recent studies focusing on STEM students’ anxiety reveal the impact that ableism has on students’ perceptions. Downing and colleagues (2020) identified the factors that increased and decreased the anxiety of community college students in active-learning biology courses. While the scope of this study was not limited to disabled students, participants who disclosed disabilities also discussed the impact of others’ perceptions of their disability on their anxiety. Busch and colleagues (2023) investigated the extent to which biology, chemistry, geosciences, and physics undergraduates experienced fear of negative evaluation. This included how teaching practices impacted fear of negative evaluation, as well as how fear of negative evaluation specifically impacted students with certain social identities, including disability. This research reflects complex embodiment by comparing the impact of different social locations on students’ mental health and motivations.

Other DBER has expanded on understanding of the extra mental and emotional labor placed on disabled people as they navigate the prejudices of others. One study, for example, investigated the perceptions of students and colleagues toward a dyslexic faculty member ( Hiscock and Leigh, 2020 ). They first characterized how students in a first-year course that was foundational to both forensic science and chemistry responded to an instructor and their course before and after the instructor disclosed being dyslexic. They then explored how colleagues working in the same building as a dyslexic faculty member perceived dyslexia and dyslexic people. These colleagues included faculty, postdoctoral researchers, research fellows, and graduate students in biology, forensic science, physics, and chemistry. The researchers also examined the impact of a dyslexic instructor asking their colleagues to check their lecture slides for mistakes before using them. This focus reveals the impact that both students and colleagues have on a dyslexic faculty member's social location. It recognizes the potential for stigmatizing views held by both students and colleagues to affect the role occupied by dyslexic faculty members.

Another study investigated how undergraduate STEM majors who self-identified both as disabled and as LGBTQ+ described their college experiences, with a focus on their experiences with social connection or isolation, any times they experienced discrimination, and the resources and allies who helped them in those circumstances ( Miller and Downey, 2020 ). They regarded these factors as contributing to the “climate” students experienced, which they sought to characterize. While climate arose from social attitudes regarding disability, it was also created by the barriers more explicitly present in expectations for success in these disciplines. Studies that examine these phenomena expose how the culture in STEM communities reinforces a social location for disabled people.

Studies that investigate barriers to the success and participation of disabled people in different STEM disciplines show how ableist mechanisms have been codified into the disciplines themselves. These include factors that contribute to disabled students being encouraged to leave STEM disciplines, “weed out” practices in gateway STEM courses, and normative expectations exemplifying success.

One such study explored the experiences and future goals of disabled students in higher education ( Palan, 2021 ). Their sample represented students who had been diagnosed with visual impairments, mobility impairments, hearing impairments, or speech impairments. They examined how students’ access to courses and career opportunities were affected by systemic exclusion, available information, internalized oppression, pedagogy, and employment opportunities. This included how students’ opportunities to pursue STEM disciplines were impacted by external perceptions of their disabilities. One student with a visual impairment was explicitly forbidden by their academic institution from pursuing math and physics and was instead instructed to study languages.

Recent DBER has investigated the impact of institutional and disciplinary values on the experiences of neurodivergent students. Neurodiversity has been defined as “a range of neurological variations such as, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and other learning differences that are widely labeled and understood as disabilities” ( Syharat et al. , 2023 ). One such study explored the factors that graduate students in STEM disciplines who self-identified as neurodivergent perceived contributed to success, and how their perceptions of success had been influenced by externally communicated standards, such as the opinions of their advisors or policies within their institutions ( Syharat et al. , 2023 ). They also examined how neurodivergent graduate students understood their own neurodiversity, and how they perceived their neurodiversity aiding in or conflicting with the standards of success being communicated to them. These research questions reflect complex embodiment by emphasizing the impact of values expressed in academic institutions and disciplines on students’ perceptions of their belonging. Whether students perceive success as aligning with their own abilities impacts their understanding of their social location and potential to participate in STEM. When the power structure prevents members of a certain community from participating in STEM disciplines, these fields lose the contributions of their perspectives. Exclusion of disabled people from STEM disciplines affects the social locations of disabled people at a greater societal level.

Epistemic Injustice

Epistemic injustice is not a model of disability but has the potential to guide the goals of future DBER study on disability. Epistemic injustice describes how the stratification of value placed on different knowledge sources creates a power structure where those most left out of mainstream society are kept from accessing knowledge that reflects their experiences or being perceived as trustworthy holders of knowledge ( Jones, 2002 ; Fricker, 2007 ). As epistemic injustice deals with knowledge and value placed on knowledge, it is inherently deeply associated with the types of research questions scholars choose to ask and who engages in the process of generating new knowledge.

There are two types of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutic injustice ( Fricker, 2007 ). Testimonial injustice occurs when, because of discrimination, a certain person's knowledge is seen as less credible. This is often impacted by race, class, and gender, in addition to disability status. Hermeneutic injustice occurs when someone is kept from knowledge that would help them define their experiences, or there is a lack of terminology circulated to put certain experiences into words. This can often prevent people from realizing an experience they had related to their social location, rather than just being an isolated incident. For example, before language referring to sexual harassment was well known in the workplace, people who experienced it did not have terminology to report that behavior. It was through feminist activists recognizing each other's accounts as being one unified phenomenon, and then organizing for the legal recognition of sexual harassment as a category, that led to its widespread recognition ( Brownmiller, 2000 ).

Addressing hermeneutic injustice relies on this shift in understanding—from believing one's experience to be isolated to understanding it as a shared experience specifically impacted by social location ( Fricker, 2007 ). People experiencing hermeneutic injustice have described a sense of stigma that makes them feel like they cannot talk about certain experiences they have had, and an inclination to blame themselves for those experiences ( Jones, 2002 ). In learning that there is terminology for those experiences and therefore others share them, they describe a sense of revelation, and the opportunity to break their silence and sense of isolation.

One example of hermeneutic injustice impacting a community in which many members identify as disabled is the concept of autistic inertia. The term “autistic inertia” has existed as informal terminology within the autistic community, but only recently entered the scholarly conversation, in an interview study focusing on autistic adults ( Buckle et al. , 2021 ). Autistic inertia describes a difficulty autistic people may have in either initiating or pausing a task. This causes people to either go for long periods of time without beginning a task they fully intend to do, or to struggle to stop, even for essential things like eating. Participants described autistic inertia as one of the most salient difficulties they experience, but while they were aware that there was a large amount of research focusing on autism, little to none of it addresses this topic, one that is highly relevant to the daily lived experiences of this population ( Buckle et al. , 2021 ). Participants noted that instead, there is quite a bit of autism research focusing on topics that may be of more interest to those interacting with or caring for autistic people. This suggests that formal knowledge about autism is situated in a power dynamic that often prioritizes nonautistic people.

Hermeneutic injustice creates an obstacle for disabled people because the lack of studies true to their experiences leaves them with limited tools to communicate their needs. Because people struggling to relay their experiences then become viewed as less credible to others, hermeneutic injustice can also create testimonial injustice. Because knowledge itself is placed within a power dynamic, research has the potential to center the knowledge and experiences of the disabled community, making DBER a powerful tool in addressing epistemic injustice.

DisCrit, a theoretical framework created to highlight the intersectionality between both racial and ability-based oppression, presents an opportunity for researchers to intentionally combat hermeneutic injustice ( Annamma et al. , 2013 , 2018 ; Connor et al. , 2015 ). The tenets of DisCrit emphasize the importance of centering counternarratives, which are narratives told from the perspectives of minoritized people ( Matsuda, 1987 ; Solorzano and Yosso, 2001 ). DisCrit can be used to inform research methodology and can be compatible with research questions drawing from any model of disability that we have mentioned.

Opportunities for Future Work

There are many opportunities for each of the models of disability to drive future research. Future uses of the medical model could include personal firsthand accounts of the experiences of disabled people. It would be useful for there to be more research spanning a diversity of experiences with particular disabilities. Engel's version of the medical model allows us to recognize that social factors can still impact disabling conditions that are not located externally. Using the medical model in future research can give people the opportunity to describe their experiences on an individual basis. The medical model is especially relevant for individuals with conditions they would personally refer to as illnesses.

The medical model is also ingrained into the system of accommodations that disabled students must navigate. Future studies could take an asset-based approach by further detailing the strengths and skills that students gain by navigating this system. This research avenue could draw from Community Cultural Wealth, a framework that describes strengths that marginalized students gain by navigating a social system that was not designed for them ( Yosso, 2005 ).

The social model, and specifically the social relational model, can be used to expand on the research on UDL and issues of accessibility in STEM education. The social model can allow us to further characterize ways that one's surroundings may disable them in academia and in the sciences. Future research may aim to navigate conflicts between different people's accessibility needs, and how we can create environments that support these differences without further marginalizing anyone.

Research using a complex embodiment model would focus on the situated knowledges of disabled people both as individuals and as a community. Future research may examine how academic environments and pedagogical practices communicate the social location of disabled people. The cultures of different academic disciplines may also influence this social location.

Theoretical models can also be combined. Using the complex embodiment model as a research framework would encourage future research to focus on the ways in which disabled people can be given the power to shape spaces in STEM, thus emphasizing their contributions. This model could let us analyze people's embodied experiences and the varying accessibility of different environments through the lens of social location. Studies focused on embodiment could examine embodied experiences outside of just disablement, aiming to represent variability between bodies to a fuller extent. Studies focused on access could recognize how the ideology of ability currently works against the presence and participation of disabled individuals in academic and professional settings.

To address epistemic injustice, it is important that the group of interest feels that their experiences are appropriately represented in the research, and that researchers pursue questions that the community of interest feels are pressing issues. Furthermore, research could counter hermeneutic injustice by focusing on how disabled people form community and support one another, thus helping people recognize shared experiences.

Models of disability provide lenses that shape the way disability and disabled students are conceptualized, viewed, and valued. These models have informed the types of questions researchers have asked, and thus the type of knowledge generated about disability and disabled students. In this essay, we have argued that expanding the theoretical models that guide DBER scholarship on disability has the potential to move the field into new research directions.

We began by reviewing research and knowledge gained from the medical model and social model. We then highlighted the potential for feminist standpoint theory to guide theoretical frameworks that align with the expressed goals of recent DBER literature focusing on disability. Standpoint theory provides the concept of social location and has shaped the complex embodiment model of disability. Additionally, epistemic injustice can serve to direct the goals of future research in producing knowledge beneficial to the disabled community. We have highlighted and proposed opportunities for future research using the lens of each of these models.

• Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. ( 2013 ). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability . Race Ethnicity and Education , 16 (1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511 Google Scholar
• Annamma, S. A., Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. ( 2018 ). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education . Review of Research in Education , 42 (1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041 Google Scholar
• Balta, J. Y., Supple, B., & O'Keeffe, G. W. ( 2021 ). The Universal Design for Learning framework in anatomical sciences education . Anatomical Sciences Education , 14 (1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1992 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Berghs, M., Atkin, K., Graham, H., Hatton, C., & Thomas, C. ( 2016 ). Implications for public health research of models and theories of disability: A scoping study and evidence synthesis . Public Health Research , 4 (8), 1–166. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr04080 Google Scholar
• Bettencourt, G., Kimball, E., & Wells, R. ( 2018 ). Disability in postsecondary STEM learning environments: What faculty focus groups reveal about definitions and obstacles to effective support, version 31 , 383. Google Scholar
• Braun, D. C., Gormally, C., & Clark, M. D. ( 2017 ). The Deaf Mentoring Survey: A community cultural wealth framework for measuring mentoring effectiveness with underrepresented students . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 16 (1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0155 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Brownmiller, S. ( 2000 ). Its name is sexual harassment . In: In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution . New York, NY: Dell Publishing. Google Scholar
• Buckle, K. L., Leadbitter, K., Poliakoff, E., & Gowen, E. ( 2021 ). “No Way Out Except From External Intervention”: First-hand accounts of autistic inertia . Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 631596. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631596 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Büdy, B. ( 2021 ). Embracing neurodiversity by increasing learner agency in nonmajor chemistry classes . Journal of Chemical Education , 98 (12), 3784–3793. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00247 Google Scholar
• Bury, M. ( 1997 ). Health and Illness in a Changing Society . London, England: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Busch, C. A., Wiesenthal, N. J., Mohammed, T. F., Anderson, S., Barstow, M., Custalow, C. , … & Cooper, K. M. ( 2023 ). The disproportionate impact of fear of negative evaluation on first-generation college students, LGBTQ+ students, and students with disabilities in college science courses Life Sciences Education , 22 (1076), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-10-0195 . Google Scholar
• Cardoso, E., da, S., Phillips, B. N., Thompson, K., Ruiz, D., Tansey, T. N., & Chan, F. ( 2016 ). Experiences of minority college students with disabilities in STEM . Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 29 (4), 375–388. Google Scholar
• Center for Applied Special Technology . About Universal Design for Learning . Retrieved April 28, 2024 , from https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl Google Scholar
• Collins, P. H. ( 1998 ). Some group matters: Intersectionality, situated standpoints, and Black feminist thought . In: Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice (pp. 201–228). Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar
• Colvert, A. L. ( 2000 ). An organizational communication culture study of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) [Ph.D., Ohio University]. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/304611210/abstract/1FCFEF39BB1A4136PQ/1?%20Theses&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&parentSessionId=p%2BRKa2021K3DUyEWqPtjFu7%2BpxcTmjxEUnqjsyt7oSs%3D Google Scholar
• Connor, D., Ferri, B., & Annamma, S. ( 2015 ). DisCrit: Disability Studies and Critical Race Theory in Education . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
• Davis, L. J. ( 2002 ). Bodies of difference: Politics, disability, and representation . In B. BrueggemannS. SnyderR. Garland-Thomson (Eds.), Disability Studies: Enabling the Humanities . New York, NY: Modern Language Association. Google Scholar
• Dolmage, J. ( 2015 ). Universal Design: Places to start . Disability Studies Quarterly , 35 (2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i2.4632 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Dolmage, J. ( 2017 ). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9708722 Google Scholar
• Downing, V. R., Cooper, K. M., Cala, J. M., Gin, L. E. & Brownell, S. E. ( 2020 ). Fear of negative evaluation and student anxiety in community college active-learning science courses . Life Sciences Education , 19 (1076), ar20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-09-0186 . Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Dunn, C., Shannon, D., McCullough, B., Jenda, O., Qazi, M., & Pettis, C. ( 2021 ). A mentoring bridge model for students with disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics . Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 34 (2), 163–177. Google Scholar
• Dunn, D. S., & Andrews, E. E. ( 2015 ). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language . American Psychologist , 70 (3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038636 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Dutta, A., Kang, H.-J., Kaya, C., Benton, S. F., Sharp, S. E., Chan, F., ... & Kundu, M. ( 2015 ). Social-cognitive career theory predictors of STEM career interests and goal persistence in minority college students with disabilities: A path analysis . Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 43 (2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150765 Google Scholar
• Engel, G. ( 1977 ). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine . Science , 196 (4286), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• French, S. ( 1993 ). Disability, impairment or something in between . In J. SwainS. FrenchC. BarnesC. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments , (1st ed., pp. 17–25). London: Sage. Google Scholar
• Fricker, M. ( 2007 ). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing . Oxford England: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Gelbar, N., & Madaus, J. ( 2021 ). Factors related to extended time use by college students with disabilities . Remedial and Special Education , 42 (6), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520972787 Google Scholar
• Gin, L. E., Guerrero, F. A., Brownell, S. E., & Cooper, K. M. ( 2021 ). COVID-19 and undergraduates with disabilities: Challenges resulting from the rapid transition to online course delivery for students with disabilities in undergraduate STEM at large-enrollment institutions . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 20 (3), ar36. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-02-0028 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Gin, L. E., Guerrero, F. A., Cooper, K. M., & Brownell, S. E. ( 2020 ). Is active learning accessible? Exploring the process of providing accommodations to students with disabilities . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 19 (4), es12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-03-0049 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Gin, L. E., Pais, D., Cooper, K. M., & Brownell, S. E. ( 2022 ). Students with disabilities in life science undergraduate research experiences: Challenges and opportunities . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 21 (2), ar32. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-07-0196 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Gokool-Baurhoo, N., & Asghar, A. ( 2019 ). “I can't tell you what the learning difficulty is”: Barriers experienced by college science instructors in teaching and supporting students with learning disabilities . Teaching and Teacher Education , 79 , 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.016 Google Scholar
• Goodwin, E. C., Pais, D., He, J., Gin, L. E., & Brownell, S. E. ( 2024 ). Perspectives from undergraduate life sciences faculty: Are we equipped to effectively accommodate students with disabilities in our classrooms? CBE–Life Sciences Education , 23 (2), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-05-0094 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Gregg, N., Wolfe, G., Jones, S., Todd, R., Moon, N., & Langston, C. ( 2016 ). STEM e-mentoring and community college students with disabilities . Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 29 (1), 47–63. Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. ( 1988 ). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective . Feminist Studies , 14 (3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 Google Scholar
• Harding, S. G. ( 1986 ). The Science Question in Feminism . Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
• Hartsock, N. C. M. ( 1983 ). The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism . In S. HardingM. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (pp. 283–310). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48017-4_15 Google Scholar
• Hiscock, J., & Leigh, J. ( 2020 ). Exploring perceptions of and supporting dyslexia in teachers in higher education in STEM . Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 57 (6), 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1764377 Google Scholar
• Hogan, A. J. ( 2019 ). Social and medical models of disability and mental health: Evolution and renewal . CMAJ , 191 (1), E16–E18. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.181008 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Jaggar, A. M. ( 1989 ). Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology . Inquiry , 32 (2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748908602185 Google Scholar
• James, W., Bustamante, C., Lamons, K., Scanlon, E., & Chini, J. J. ( 2020 ). Disabling barriers experienced by students with disabilities in postsecondary introductory physics . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 16 (2), 020111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020111 Google Scholar
• Jones, K. ( 2002 ). The politics of credibility . In: A Mind Of One's Own: Eminist Essays On Reason And Objectivity (2nd ed.). London England: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Jurgens, A. ( 2023 ). Body social models of disability: Examining enactive and ecological approaches . Frontiers in Psychology , 14 (1965), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128772 . Google Scholar
• Laing, R. D. ( 1971 ). The politics of the family and other essays. (1) New York: Pantheon Books, 978-0-422-73870-5. Google Scholar
• LaMotte, S. ( 2021 ). Living with a short sleep gene: “It's a gift .” CNN , Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/22/health/short-sleep-gene-wellness-scn/index.html Google Scholar
• Love, T. S., Kreiser, N., Camargo, E., Grubbs, M. E., Kim, E. J., Burge, P. L., & Culver, S. M. ( 2014 ). STEM faculty experiences with students with disabilities at a Land Grant Institution . Journal of Education and Training Studies , 3 (1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i1.573 Google Scholar
• Manalili, M. A. ( 2021 ). Ableist ideologies stifle neurodiversity and hinder inclusive education . Ought: The Journal of Autistic Culture , 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2833-1508.1072 Google Scholar
• Marx, K. ( 1852 ). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte . Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1346 Google Scholar
• Matsuda, M. J. ( 1987 ). Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations . Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review , 22 , 323–399. Google Scholar
• Miller, D. K., & Lang, P. L. ( 2016 ). Using the Universal Design for Learning approach in science laboratories to minimize student stress . Journal of Chemical Education , 93 (11), 1823–1828. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00108 Google Scholar
• Miller, R. A., & Downey, M. ( 2020 ). Examining the STEM climate for queer students with disabilities . Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 33 (2), 169–181. Google Scholar
• Moon, N. W., Utschig, T. T., Todd, R. L., & Bozzorg, A. ( 2011 ). Evaluation of programmatic interventions to improve postsecondary STEM education for students with disabilities: Findings from SciTrain University . Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 24 (4), 331–349. Google Scholar
• Morris, J. ( 1991 ). Pride Against Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to Disability . Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Google Scholar
• Nešić, J. ( 2023 ). Ecological-enactive account of autism spectrum disorder . Synthese , 201 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04073-x . Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. ( 1991 ). Social Work: Disabled People and Disabling Environments . London England: J. Kingsley Publishers. Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. ( 2004 ). The social model in action: If I had a hammer . In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research (pp. 18–31). Leeds, UK: The Disability Press. Google Scholar
• Orndorf, H. C., Waterman, M., Lange, D., Kavin, D., Johnston, S. C., & Jenkins, K. P. ( 2022 ). Opening the pathway: An example of Universal Design for Learning as a guide to inclusive teaching practices . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 21 (2), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-09-0239 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Palan, R. ( 2021 ). “I seriously wanted to opt for science, but they said no”: Visual impairment and higher education in India . Disability & Society , 36 (2), 202–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1739624 Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, M. A., Cordero, J. J., & Stanton, J. D. ( 2023 ). What I wish my instructor knew: How active learning influences the classroom experiences and self-advocacy of STEM majors with ADHD and specific learning disabilities . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 22 (1), ar2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-12-0329 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, M. A., Reiter, E. M., Cordero, J. J., & Stanton, J. D. ( 2021 ). Inside and out: Factors that support and hinder the self-advocacy of undergraduates with ADHD and/or specific learning disabilities in STEM . CBE–Life Sciences Education , 20 (2), ar17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-06-0107 Link ,  Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, M. A., Reiter, E. M., Hendrickson, M., & Stanton, J. D. ( 2020 ). Speaking up: A model of self-advocacy for STEM undergraduates with ADHD and/or specific learning disabilities . International Journal of STEM Education , 7 (1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00233-4 Google Scholar
• Price, M. ( 2011 ). Mad at School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.1612837 Google Scholar
• Rose, D. ( 2001 ). Universal Design for Learning . Journal of Special Education Technology , 16 (3), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340101600308 Google Scholar
• Rose, D., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. ( 2006 ). Universal Design for Learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application . Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability , 19 (2), 135–151. Google Scholar
• Rose, D., & Meyer, A. ( 2002 ). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from https://www.cast.org/products-services/resources/2002/universal-design-learning-udl-teaching-every-student-rose Google Scholar
• Rose, H. ( 1983 ). Hand, brain, and heart: A feminist epistemology for the natural sciences . Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 9 (1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/494025 Google Scholar
• Schuntermann, M. F. ( 1996 ). The international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps (ICIDH) results and problems : International Journal of Rehabilitation Research , 19 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-199603000-00001 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Schwab, S. M., Spencer, C., Carver N. S., Andrade, V., Dugan, S., Greve, K. & Silva, P. L. ( 2022 ). Personal factors understood through the Ecological-Enactive Model of Disability and implications for rehabilitation research . Frontiers in Rehabilitation Science , 3 (1965), 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2022.954061 . Google Scholar
• Shakespeare, T. ( 2013 ). The social model of disability . In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (pp. 214–221). Abingdon, Unitd Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ttu/detail.action?docID=1125176 Google Scholar
• Shmulsky, S., Gobbo, K., & Bower, W. M. ( 2018 ). STEM faculty experience teaching students with autism . Journal of STEM Teacher Education , 53 (2). https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE53.2Shmulsky Google Scholar
• Shpigelman, C.-N., Mor, S., Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N. ( 2022 ). Supporting the development of students with disabilities in higher education: Access, stigma, identity, and power . Studies in Higher Education , 47 (9), 1776–1791. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1960303 Google Scholar
• Siebers, T. ( 2008 ). Disability Theory . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from https://www.press.umich.edu/309723/disability_theory Google Scholar
• Silver, P., Bourke, A., & Strehorn, K. C. ( 1998 ). Universal Instructional Design in higher education: An approach for inclusion . Equity & Excellence in Education , 31 (2), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568980310206 Google Scholar
• Snyder, S. L., & Mitchell, D. T. ( 2006 ). Cultural Locations of Disability . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ttu/detail.action?docID=557555 Google Scholar
• Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. ( 2001 ). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 14 (4), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110063365 Google Scholar
• Syharat, C. M., Hain, A., Zaghi, A. E., Gabriel, R., & Berdanier, C. G. P. ( 2023 ). Experiences of neurodivergent students in graduate STEM programs . Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1–16, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1149068 Google Scholar
• Szasz, T. S. ( 1956 ). Some observations on the relationship between psychiatry and the law . A.M.A. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry , 75 (3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurpsyc.1956.02330210077008 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Wood, W. M., Brewer, D. M., & Eddy, S. ( 2005 ). A conceptual framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities . Remedial and Special Education , 26 (1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010601 Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. ( 1999 ). Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability . Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. ( 2004 ). Developing the social relational in the social model of disability: A theoretical agenda . In K. A. Joseph (Ed.), Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research . (Vol. 22, pp. 32–47). Retrieved from Leeds: Disability Press. Google Scholar
• Thomson, R. G. ( 1997 ). Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature, Twentieth Anniversary Edition , (pp. 224). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
• Toro, J., Kiverstein, J., & Rietveld, E. ( 2020 ). The ecological-enactive model of disability: Why disability does not entail pathological embodiment . Frontiers in Psychology , 11 , https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01162 Google Scholar
• Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation . ( 1974 ). Policy Statement . Google Scholar
• Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation . ( 1975 ). Fundamental principles of disability ( Priestley M.Finkelstein V.Davis K. ). Google Scholar
• Vidali, A. ( 2007 ). Performing the rhetorical freak show: Disability, student writing, and college admissions . College English , 69 (6), 615–641. Google Scholar
• Wangensteen, T., & Hystad, J. ( 2022 ). A comprehensive approach to understanding substance use disorder and recovery: Former patients’ experiences and reflections on the recovery process four years after discharge from SUD treatment . Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health , 9 (1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40737-021-00233-9 Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Weber, M. C. ( 1994 ). Disability discrimination by state and local government: The relationship between section 504 of the rehabilitation act and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act . William and Mary Law Review , 36 (3), 1089–1134. Google Scholar
• Williams, S. J. ( 1999 ). Is anybody there? Critical realism, chronic illness and the disability debate . Sociology of Health & Illness , 21 (6), 797–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00184 Google Scholar
• World Health Organization . ( 1980 ). International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps . Die Rehabilitation , 35 (1), 6–13. Google Scholar
• Yosso, T. J. ( 2005 ). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth . Race Ethnicity and Education , 8 (1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. ( 2005 ). Throwing like a girl: A phenomenology of feminine body comportment, motility, and spatiality . In: On Female Body Experience: Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Zaghi, A. E., Grey, A., Hain, A., & Syharat, C. M. ( 2023 ). “ It seems like I'm doing something more important”—an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the transformative impact of research experiences for STEM students with ADHD . Education Sciences , 13 (8), 776. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080776 Google Scholar

Submitted: 31 January 2024 Revised: 25 July 2024 Accepted: 30 July 2024

© 2024 M. N. Tedeschi and L. B. Limeri. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2024 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).