theory based in research

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Theoretical Research: Definition, Methods + Examples

Research is the careful study of a particular research problem or concern using the scientific method. A theory is essential for any research project because it gives it direction and helps prove or disprove something. Theoretical basis helps us figure out how things work and why we do certain things.

Theoretical research lets you examine and discuss a research object using philosophical ideas and abstract theoretical structures.

In theoretical research, you can’t look at the research object directly. With the help of research literature, your research aims to define and sketch out the chosen topic’s conceptual models, explanations, and structures.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

This blog will cover theoretical research and why it is essential. In addition to that, we are going to go over some examples.

What is the theoretical research?

Theoretical research is the systematic examination of a set of beliefs and assumptions.

It aims to learn more about a subject and help us understand it better. The information gathered in this way is not used for anything in particular because this kind of research aims to learn more.

All professionals, like biologists, chemists, engineers, architects, philosophers, writers, sociologists, historians, etc., can do theoretical research. No matter what field you work in, theoretical research is the foundation for new ideas.

It tries to answer basic questions about people, which is why this kind of research is used in every field of knowledge.

For example , a researcher starts with the idea that we need to understand the world around us. To do this, he begins with a hypothesis and tests it through experiments that will help him develop new ideas. 

What is the theoretical framework?

A theoretical framework is a critical component in research that provides a structured foundation for investigating a specific topic or problem. It encompasses a set of interconnected theories, existing theories, and concepts that guide the entire research process. 

The theoretical framework introduces a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Also, the theoretical framework strengthens the research’s validity and specifies the key elements that will be explored. Furthermore, it connects different ideas and theories, forming a cohesive structure that underpins the research endeavor.

A complete theoretical framework consists of a network of theories, existing theories, and concepts that collectively shape the direction of a research study. 

The theoretical framework is the fundamental principle that will be explored, strengthens the research’s credibility by aligning it with established knowledge, specifies the variables under investigation, and connects different aspects of the research to create a unified approach.

Theoretical frameworks are the intellectual scaffolding upon which the research is constructed. It is the lens through which researchers view their subject, guiding their choice of methodologies, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. By incorporating existing theory, and established concepts, a theoretical framework not only grounds the research but also provides a coherent roadmap for exploring the intricacies of the chosen topic.

Benefits of theoretical research

Theoretical research yields a wealth of benefits across various fields, from social sciences to human resource development and political science. Here’s a breakdown of these benefits while incorporating the requested topics:

Predictive power

Theoretical models are the cornerstone of theoretical research. They grant us predictive power, enabling us to forecast intricate behaviors within complex systems, like societal interactions. In political science, for instance, a theoretical model helps anticipate potential outcomes of policy changes.

Understanding human behavior

Drawing from key social science theories, it assists us in deciphering human behavior and societal dynamics. For instance, in the context of human resource development, theories related to motivation and psychology provide insights into how to effectively manage a diverse workforce.

Optimizing workforce

In the realm of human resource development, insights gleaned from theoretical research, along with the research methods knowledge base, help create targeted training programs. By understanding various learning methodologies and psychological factors, organizations can optimize workforce training for better results.

Building on foundations

It doesn’t exist in isolation; it builds upon existing theories. For instance, within the human resource development handbook, theoretical research expands established concepts, refining their applicability to contemporary organizational challenges.

Ethical policy formulation

Within political science, theoretical research isn’t confined to governance structures. It extends to ethical considerations, aiding policymakers in creating policies that balance the collective good with individual rights, ensuring just and fair governance. 

Rigorous investigations

Theoretical research underscores the importance of research methods knowledge base. This knowledge equips researchers in theory-building research methods and other fields to design robust research methodologies, yielding accurate data and credible insights.

Long-term impact

Theoretical research leaves a lasting impact. The theoretical models and insights from key social science theories provide enduring frameworks for subsequent research, contributing to the cumulative growth of knowledge in these fields.

Innovation and practical applications

It doesn’t merely remain theoretical. It inspires innovation and practical applications. By merging insights from diverse theories and fields, practitioners in human resource development devise innovative strategies to foster employee growth and well-being.

Theoretical research method

Researchers follow so many methods when doing research. There are two types of theoretical research methods.

• Scientific methods
• Social science method 

Let’s explore them below:

Scientific method

Scientific methods have some important points that you should know. Let’s figure them out below:

• Observation: Any part you want to explain can be found through observation. It helps define the area of research.
• Hypothesis: The hypothesis is the idea put into words, which helps us figure out what we see.
• Experimentation: Hypotheses are tested through experiments to see if they are true. These experiments are different for each research.
• Theory: When we create a theory, we do it because we believe it will explain hypotheses of higher probability.
• Conclusions: Conclusions are the learnings we derive from our investigation.

Social science methods

There are different methods for social science theoretical research. It consists of polls, documentation, and statistical analysis.

• Polls: It is a process whereby the researcher uses a topic-specific questionnaire to gather data. No changes are made to the environment or the phenomenon where the polls are conducted to get the most accurate results. QuestionPro live polls are a great way to get live audiences involved and engaged.
• Documentation: Documentation is a helpful and valuable technique that helps the researcher learn more about the subject. It means visiting libraries or other specialized places, like documentation centers, to look at the existing bibliography. With the documentation, you can find out what came before the investigated topic and what other investigations have found. This step is important because it shows whether or not similar investigations have been done before and what the results were.
• Statistic analysis : Statistics is a branch of math that looks at random events and differences. It follows the rules that are established by probability. It’s used a lot in sociology and language research. 

Examples of theoretical research

We talked about theoretical study methods in the previous part. We’ll give you some examples to help you understand it better.

Example 1: Theoretical research into the health benefits of hemp

The plant’s active principles are extracted and evaluated, and by studying their components, it is possible to determine what they contain and whether they can potentially serve as a medication.

Example 2: Linguistics research

Investigate to determine how many people in the Basque Country speak Basque. Surveys can be used to determine the number of native Basque speakers and those who speak Basque as a second language.

Example 3: Philosophical research

Research politics and ethics as they are presented in the writings of Hanna Arendt from a theoretical perspective.

LEARN ABOUT: 12 Best Tools for Researchers

From our above discussion, we learned about theoretical research and its methods and gave some examples. It explains things and leads to more knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This kind of research tries to find out more about a thing or an idea, but the results may take time to be helpful in the real world. 

This research is sometimes called basic research. Theoretical research is an important process that gives researchers valuable data with insight.

QuestionPro is a strong platform for managing your data. You can conduct simple surveys to more complex research using QuestionPro survey software.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, such as our survey software and a library of insights for any long-term study. Contact our expert team to find out more about it.

FREE TRIAL         LEARN MORE

MORE LIKE THIS

AI-Based Services Buying Guide for Market Research (based on ESOMAR’s 20 Questions) 

May 20, 2024

Data Information vs Insight: Essential differences

May 14, 2024

Pricing Analytics Software: Optimize Your Pricing Strategy

May 13, 2024

Relationship Marketing: What It Is, Examples & Top 7 Benefits

May 8, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Why use theories in...

Why use theories in qualitative research?

• Related content
• Peer review
• Scott Reeves , associate professor 1 ,
• Mathieu Albert , assistant professor 2 ,
• Ayelet Kuper , assistant professor 3 ,
• Brian David Hodges , associate professor and vice-chair (education) 2
• 1 Department of Psychiatry, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Centre for Faculty Development, and Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, Eaton South 1-565, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4
• 2 Department of Psychiatry and Wilson Centre for Research in Education
• 3 Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Wilson Centre for Research in Education
• Correspondence to: S Reeves scott.reeves{at}utoronto.ca

Theories such as interactionism, phenomenology, and critical theory can be used to help design a research question, guide the selection of relevant data, interpret the data, and propose explanations of causes or influences

Previous articles in this series have addressed several methodologies used in qualitative research. Qualitative researchers also rely heavily on theories drawn from the social sciences and humanities to guide their research process and illuminate their findings. This article discusses the role and use of three theoretical approaches commonly used by qualitative researchers in health domains: interactionism, phenomenology, and critical theory. It also explains why such theories are important for clinicians, for health policy, and for patient care.

Why is theory useful?

Theories provide complex and comprehensive conceptual understandings of things that cannot be pinned down: how societies work, how organisations operate, why people interact in certain ways. Theories give researchers different “lenses” through which to look at complicated problems and social issues, focusing their attention on different aspects of the data and providing a framework within which to conduct their analysis.

Just as there is no one way to understand why, for instance, a culture has formed in a certain way, many lenses can be applied to a problem, each focusing on a different aspect of it. For example, to study doctor-nurse interactions on medical wards, various theories can provide insights into different aspects of hospital and ward cultures. Box 1 indicates how each of the theories discussed in this paper could be used to highlight different facets of this research problem.

Box 1 How different theories help illuminate the culture of doctor-nurse interactions on a medical ward

Phenomenology.

A researcher using phenomenology would approach the study of doctor-nurse interprofessional interactions by exploring how individual doctors and nurses made sense of their ward-based interprofessional experiences. Such a study would aim to elicit, through interviews, the meanings each individual attached to their interactions and the classifications they employed to make sense of their working lives within this context. Data would be analysed inductively, focusing on allowing meanings to emerge from the interviews. Specifically, this process would entail examining statements from the interviews and clustering them to form common themes linked to understanding the meanings that doctors and nurses each individually attached to their interactions.

Interactionism

Interactionist theory would be used to explore how the interprofessional relations within a medical ward context were created and modified during the daily interactions of doctors and nurses. Researchers in such a study would observe how doctors and nurses interacted (both verbally and non-verbally) in their shared clinical work; they would also interview both groups to understand the meanings they attached to their differing interprofessional interactions. Data would be analysed inductively by examining observational field notes and interviews to identify and explore the different elements which contributed to the nature of doctor-nurse interactions within a particular context. For example, researchers might examine differences between formal interactions (in front of patients) and informal interactions (in more private hospital settings).

Critical theory

A researcher employing critical theory would approach a study of doctor-nurse interactions by asking how power is related to characteristics of individuals or groups (for example, gender, race, culture). For example, critical scholars such as Anne Witz have shown that professions form hierarchies in which the dominant ones are predominately male (doctors), the first subordinate profession is largely female (nurses) and the most subordinate are often members of ethic minorities (nursing assistants). 14 Data analysis would be informed by the specific critical theoretical lens selected by the researcher. For example, data could be filtered through a feminist lens to help understand how patriarchy operates through doctor-nurse interactions within medical ward settings.

What are examples of theories used by qualitative researchers?

This theory was originally developed by Edmund Husserl to explain how individuals give meanings to social phenomena in their everyday lives. The role of phenomenology was therefore to explore “the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.” 1 Studies that draw upon this theoretical perspective concentrate on exploring how individuals make sense of the world in terms of the meanings and classifications they employ. As such, phenomenology aims to provide accounts that offer an insight into the subjective “lived” experience of individuals. 2 Given the emphasis, phenomenological studies do not attempt to generate wider explanations; rather their focus is on providing research accounts for individuals in a specific setting.

In general, studies that draw upon a phenomenological approach gather data in the form of in-depth semistructured or unstructured interviews and personal documents such as diaries. For example, Porter and colleagues used in-depth individual interviews to understand the meanings people living in residential homes held about their caregivers, 3 whereas Mitchell gathered the meanings of being a senior from narrative stories written by older people about their personal experiences in later life. 4 Theories that privilege understanding of human experience in terms of individual consciousness, such as phenomenology, share links to the work of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and French existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre. However, phenomenology, as a result of its specific, empirical focus on the individual experience, is an example of a micro level theory within this philosophical orientation.

In contrast to the phenomenological focus on understanding individual perceptions, interactionism concentrates on exploring collective (group or team) behaviours and perceptions. Originally developed by George Mead, this approach aimed to provide an understanding of individuals’ interactions by examining the symbols, especially the language, they use in their daily encounters. In particular, interactionism is an approach that aims to elicit an understanding of how meaning is created and modified by individuals through their social actions, interactions, and reactions. Herbert Blumer outlined interactionism’s three guiding assumptions: that human beings act towards things on the basis of the meanings that these things have for them; that the meaning of such things is derived from, and arises out of, social interaction with one’s fellows; that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he or she encounters. 5

Given the emphasis on understanding the processes of social interactions, interactionist research studies often draw on methods of data collection such as participant observation and interviews to capture these elements of social action. For example, Goffman found that individuals’ interactions are largely dependent on whether they are interacting in a “front stage” (a hospital ward, for example) or a “backstage” (private office, for example) setting. 6 More recent research on the socialisation of medical students has indicated the significance of front and backstage performances in their socialisation. 7

Several theories conceptualise reality as a social or collective construction, and these have roots in the work of European writers such as Émile Durkheim and Lev Vygotsky and of Americans Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman. Interactionism attempts to generalise beyond the individual experience but retains a mid-range focus on local systems and contexts within this broader social constructivist school.

Critical theory is oriented towards critiquing and changing society as a whole. 8 With roots in the work of Marx on production and capitalism, it was further developed at the Institute for Social Research of the University of Frankfurt in the 1930s. More recently, this tradition has been carried on by social scientists such as Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault.

Critical theorists study how the construction of knowledge and the organisation of power in society generally, and in institutions such as schools, hospitals, and governments specifically, can lead to the subjugation or oppression of particular individuals, groups, or perspectives. Critical theorists are concerned with equity and justice in relation to issues such as race, socioeconomic status, religion, and sexuality. 9 For example, Battiste studied how Euro-American dominated health care, pharmaceutical research, and educational institutions marginalise indigenous knowledge, and how both endangered certain populations and marginalised important knowledge about health and the environment. 10 Muzzin used critical theory in her study of how education of health professionals has come to reflect corporate interests, thereby reproducing gender and class inequity, as universities developed “academic capitalism.” 11

Critical theory is not tied to one specific methodology and can be applied at the micro (individual), macro (local systems and contexts), or macro (societal) level.

Aren’t there a lot more theories?

The three theories we have discussed so far in this paper are examples of the possible theories a qualitative researcher might use. Box 2 provides some further examples of other theories that have been used in qualitative research studies in domains related to medicine.

Box 2 More examples of theories used in qualitative research

Professionalisation theory.

Elliot Freidson developed his theory of professionalisation in response to previous explanations that had considered only the range of positive traits of professional groups. 15 Freidson argued that occupational groups, such as medicine, had previously engaged in a process of professionalisation to secure exclusive ownership of specific areas of knowledge and expertise. In obtaining exclusivity, occupational groups secure autonomy of practice, which leads to economic rewards and enhanced status. To protect the gains obtained from professionalisation, occupations guard their areas of knowledge and expertise through strict regulation of entry and the maintenance of professional standards. More recently, this theory has been questioned because of the increasing influence of clinical management on medicine, which Haug argued had resulted in a “deprofessionalisation” process, whereby some of the professional gains described by Freidson have been undermined. 16

Labelling theory

Originating in the sociology of deviance, labelling theory focuses on how society can negatively label a group whose behaviour is deemed as deviating from the norm. The theory was applied in a healthcare context by Scheff to help understand the nature of mental illness. 17 Scheff argued that mental illness is essentially generated as a result of societal influence. To understand deviant actions, individuals often place the label “mental illness” on those who show such actions. Certain expectations are then placed on these individuals and, over time, they unconsciously change their behaviour to fulfil them (a notion termed self fulfilling prophesy). Empirical work by Link et al has shown how influential labelling can be for mentally ill patients: once they are labelled as having this type of illness, people may withdraw from society. 18

Negotiated order theory

This theory was developed by Strauss et al to advance thinking about the way social order is maintained in organisations. 19 Previous explanations of social order within organisations tended to emphasise formal structures and rules and to neglect the influence of negotiations at the micro level. For Strauss and his colleagues, negotiation between individuals (through bargaining, compromising, and mediating) creates and shapes organisational rules and structures. Consequently, micro level negotiation contributes to the development and maintenance of the social order that exists within an organisation. This theory has been used in various organisational settings, including health care, where it indicated that informal negotiation was key in nurse-doctor decisions on patient care. 20

Following work by Merton, such theories can usefully be grouped into a taxonomy to guide novice researchers as to which theories are likely to be helpful in dealing with a particular research problem (table ⇓ ). 12 As shown in the table, grand or “macro” theories are non-specific and constructed from relatively abstract concepts. As a result of their wide ranging nature, these types of theories are difficult to operationalise and verify on an empirical basis. Mid-range theories consider specific phenomena and involve a small number of concepts relating to a restricted range of contexts. “Micro” or practice theories have the narrowest range of interest and are focused on specific phenomena and contexts. Box 3 addresses further frequently asked questions about theories in qualitative research.

Types of theory, with examples from related domains

• View inline

Box 3 Frequently asked questions

How is the term “theory” defined.

A theory is an organised, coherent, and systematic articulation of a set of issues that are communicated as a meaningful whole.

How are theories generated?

Theories are usually generated deductively, from an empirically informed act of creativity, then empirically verified. In this sense, theories result from an ongoing process of deduction and induction.

How can theories be used?

Theories are usually used to help design a research question, guide the selection of relevant data, interpret the data, and propose explanations of the underlying causes or influences of observed phenomena.

Can theories be used to predict research findings and generate hypotheses?

In general, theories in the natural sciences are used to generate predictions about the relation between two or more different variables in order to generate universal laws. In contrast, social scientists assume that social reality is too complex to consider variables in isolation in order to test their causal relationship. In addition, social scientists view universal laws as being unable to explain the complex interrelated functions of societies, thus making it impossible to draw on evidence for prediction. So, for social scientists, a theory is first and foremost a conceptual tool useful in making sense of a complex social reality.

How are theories and methodologies related?

Some theories and methodologies are historically related—that is, they both derive from the same discipline or school, and although they are sometimes used separately they are often taught and used together. The classic example of this is the link between interactionism (theory) and ethnography. Other theories (or families of theories) link well with multiple methodologies. For example, critical theories have been used to varying effect with almost every available methodology (both qualitative and quantitative).

Are these all the possible theories?

No—we have just scratched the surface. Theories have been developed and modified over several hundred years and have dialectically informed each other’s changes over time. The theories we have mentioned in this paper are those that readers are likely to encounter in the health domain. Other important theories used often in the social sciences and humanities, but only occasionally in health related research, include (but are not limited to) marxism and its descendants, feminism, hermeneutics, and the post-modernist family of theories.

Box 4 Further reading

Crotty M. Foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process . London: Sage, 1998.

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000.

Layder D. Understanding social theory . London: Sage, 1994.

Ritzer G, Smart B, eds. Handbook of social theory . London: Sage, 2003.

Roberts B. Micro social theory . Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006.

Scamber G, ed. Sociological theory and medical sociology . London: Tavistock, 1987.

Stones R, ed. Key sociological thinkers . Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998.

Why is theory important to health policy and patient care?

Theories such as those described above are important to health policy and the delivery of patient care, as the insights they provoke enable research that provides practitioners with a broader understanding of the situations they face in their daily working lives. The use of theory makes it possible for researchers to understand, and to translate for policy makers and healthcare providers, the processes that occur beneath the visible surface and so to develop knowledge of underlying (generating) principles. Importantly, theory can help people move beyond individual insights gained from their professional lives to a situation where they can understand the wider significance and applicability of these phenomena. Good theory based research is immediate, insightful, and applicable in practice; in the words of Kurt Lewin, “there’s nothing so practical as a good theory.” 13

Summary points

Different theories provide different lenses through which to analyse research problems

Various theories are currently used within health related research

Theories can be divided into macro (or grand) theories, mid-range theories, and micro (or practice) theories.

Theories can arise from, or be used within, different research domains (for example, biomedical domain, psychological domain, social domain)

The insights derived from theories are important for guiding health policy and informing the delivery of patient care

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a949

• Related to doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a288
• doi: , 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
• doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a1020
• doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a879
• doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1035

This is the fifth in a series of six articles that aim to help readers to critically appraise the increasing number of qualitative research articles in clinical journals. The series editors are Ayelet Kuper and Scott Reeves.

For a definition of general terms relating to qualitative research, see the first article in this series.

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• ↵ Smith D. Husserl . London: Routledge, 2007 .
• ↵ Schutz A. The phenomenology of the social world . New York: Northwestern University Press, 1967 .
• ↵ Porter E, Ganong H, Drew N, Lanes T. A new typology of home-care helpers. Gerontologist 2004 ; 44 : 750 -9. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Mitchell G. The meaning of being a senior. Nurs Sci Q 1994 ; 7 : 70 -9. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969 .
• ↵ Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life . London: Penguin, 1963 .
• ↵ Sinclair S. Making doctors: an institutional apprenticeship . Oxford: Berg, 1997 .
• ↵ Calhoun C. Critical social theory: culture, history and the challenge of difference . Oxford: Blackwell, 1995 .
• ↵ Kinchloe JL, McLaren P. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000 .
• ↵ Battiste M. You can’t be the global doctor if you’re the colonial disease. In: Tripp P, Muzzin L, eds. Teaching as activism: equity meets environmentalism . Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005 :121-133
• ↵ Muzzin L. The brave new world of professional education. In: Tripp P, Muzzin L, eds. Teaching as activism: equity meets environmentalism . Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005 :149-166
• ↵ Merton R. Social theory and social structure . New York: Free Press, 1968 .
• ↵ Lewin K. Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers . New York: Harper & Row, 1951 .
• ↵ Witz A. Professions and patriarchy . London: Macmillan, 1992 .
• ↵ Freidson E. Profession of medicine: a study of the sociology of applied knowledge. New York: Harper & Row, 1970 .
• ↵ Haug M. De-professionalisation: an alternative hypothesis for the future. Sociol Rev Monograph 1993 ; 20 : 195 -211. OpenUrl
• ↵ Scheff T. Being mentally ill: a sociological theory . 3rd ed. New York: Transaction, 1999 .
• ↵ Link B, Phelan J. The labelling theory of mental disorder: The consequences of labelling. In: Horwitz A, Scheid T, eds. A handbook for the study of mental health . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999 :361-76.
• ↵ Strauss A, Schatzman D, Ehrlich R, Bucher M, Sabshin C. The hospital and its negotiated order. In: Freidson E, ed. The hospital in modern society . New York: Free Press, 1963 :147-69.
• ↵ Svensson R. The interplay between doctors and nurses—a negotiated order perspective. Sociol Health Illness 1996 ; 18 : 379 -98. OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science

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
• BMC Med Educ

Using theory in health professions education research: a guide for early career researchers

Koshila kumar.

1 Prideaux Discipline of Clinical Education, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia Australia

Chris Roberts

2 Education Office, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia

Gabrielle M. Finn

3 Division of Medical Education, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9NT UK

Yu-Che Chang

4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital; Chang Gung Medical Education Research Centre (CG-MERC) and School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

Theory provides complex and comprehensive explanations of a wide range of phenomena (i.e., things that we research), and using theory can enhance quality in health professions education (HPE) research [ 1 – 4 ]. However, those who are new to HPE research and early career researchers (ECRs) can find it challenging to use theory. In this paper, we outline key considerations (see Table ​ Table1) 1 ) for using theory in HPE research, both in relation to theory as a subject or content area and the process of using it, including critically questioning which theories are priviledged in the HPE literature [ 5 , 6 ]. By providing this guidance, we hope to support new and early-career HPE researchers around the globe to enhance their capacity to appraise and improve theoretical quality, both in relation to their own work and the HPE literature. While theory is the focus of this paper, we acknowledge it is one of many aspects that researchers have to concurrently balance and integrate into their work [ 7 ].

Considerations for using theory in health professions education research

Consider theory comprehensively and critically

There are many different definitions of theory articulated in the HPE literature. These include theory as: an organised, coherent, and systematic articulation of a set of issues that are communicated as a meaningful whole [ 1 ]; a means of better understanding the mechanics of the research phenomena [ 3 ], a system of ideas intended to explain a phenomenon [ 8 ]; or a ‘philosophical stance informing the methodology’ [ 9 ]. These multiple definitions highlight that there are different interpretations about what theory is. For example, some regard theory as the underpinning philosophy or paradigm of a discipline which are the assumptions which underpin what a researcher does and why (we cover this in more detail later). Others, including ourselves, regard theory as a specific set of ideas or a lens that can be applied to examining and explaining phenomena. Furthermore, there are many different terms associated with theory [ 2 ] and interchangeable use of terminology. Therefore, we advise those new to HPE research to take time in the early stages of their research to clarify interpretations and terminology associated with theory and their own understandings of theory, through discussion with their supervisors/mentors, and research colleagues.

Given the range of theories available for use, we suggest ECRs seek guidance from supervisors/mentors and colleagues about what theories they use and see which theories are being discussed in their professional networks and social media. Once there is an initial level of familiarity, we advise ECRs to note which theories are being used in the primary HPE research literature (peer-reviewed journal articles) and grey literature (e.g., reports, conference presentations etc.) in the HPE field. To reduce the reliance on others’ interpretations of theory, it will also be important to engage with original sources of a chosen theory (or theories). To enhance inclusivity and diversity of theory [ 5 , 6 ], we advise ECRs to engage with theories from other disciplines (e.g., social psychology, sociology, education, philosophy, organisational, and economics etc.), cultures and geographical settings, and with theories that are less well-known in the HPE field. We also recommend ECRs collate, deconstruct, and discuss peer-reviewed examples of theory use. To demonstrate how to deconstruct theory use, we have taken a small sample of papers published in this journal and identified how theory is used in relation to paradigm, methodology, unit of analysis, timing of theory use, and write up of theory (See Table ​ Table2). 2 ). Collectively, these strategies will help ECRs to identify and choose a theory (or multiple theories) that is fit for purpose.

Examples of papers using theory from BMC Medical Education

As ECRs engage with theory, they will need to adopt a critical stance and ask questions both about theory as a subject/content area and the process of theory use. Questions that can be asked about theory as a subject/content area include: what are the origins of a particular theory; how has that theory evolved over time; and who is using that theory and how [ 14 ]? It is important to question theory because each theory: privileges a certain way of framing a research problem; is underpinned by certain assumptions; has different strengths and limitations [ 8 ]; and offers a different level of explanation and perspective [ 2 – 4 , 8 ]. Adopting a critical stance in relation to theory is also vital to decolonise and diversify research practices [ 5 , 6 ]. In order to effectively critique theory, we encourage ECRs to keep current with contemporary debates and discussions about theory and its use. So our first set of considerations (outlined in Table ​ Table1) 1 ) relates to engaging comprehensively and critically with theory as a subject or content area.

Consider the alignment between paradigm and theory

A paradigm is a world view or a ‘philosophical way of thinking’ [ 15 ] which guides what a researcher does and why. It encompasses: values and assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology); how we come to know (epistemology); the research processes (methodology); and values (axiology) [ 16 , 17 ]. There is broad agreement that there are four main paradigms: positivism; post-positivism; constructivism/interpretivism; and critical theory [ 16 – 19 ]. Qualitative research is aligned with the post-positivist, constructivist/interpretivist, and critical paradigms, quantitative research corresponds to the positivst paradigm, and mixed methods research can involve a combination of all paradigms. A key element of HPE research relates to reflecting on and articulating one’s paradigm [ 17 ], ideally, at the time of designing a study.

Critically, ECRs are advised that although not every published study will explicitly name a paradigm, each study is situated within a specific philosophical milieu [ 20 ]. Furthermore, ECRs also need to understand that each theory itself is also underpinned by certain assumptions based not only on its disciplinary roots, but also its cultural roots [ 5 , 6 ]. For example, theories derived from psychology will differ from sociological theories in terms of their fundamental philosophical assumptions about phenomena and focus on understanding individuals and/or groups (psychological theories) and social groups, communities, and cultures (sociological theories). Similarly, theories from Western cultures may priviledge certain kinds of knowledge and perspectives over others [ 5 , 6 ]. Finally, although theory use is more prevalent in qualitative research, it can also be used in quantitative and mixed methods research as illustrated in the examples we have currated in Table ​ Table2. 2 . This reinforces the importance of all HPE researchers having some understanding of theory and how to use it. Thus, our second set of considerations relate to considering the interplay between theory and paradigm (summarised in Table ​ Table1 1 ).

Consider the interplay between methodology and theory

Methodology refers to the research processes used in a study, encompassing methods of recruitment, data collection and data analysis. An important relationship exists between paradigm and methodology [ 17 ], and therefore between methodology and theory. As identified earlier, theory can be used in both qualitative and quantitative HPE research and different methodologies interact differently with theory. For example, traditional grounded theory as a methodology actively rejects pre-existing theory and regards theory development as an endpoint of the research [ 21 ]. In contrast, contemporary variants of grounded theory use pre-existing theory to inform the research [ 22 ]. Other qualitative methodologies such as hermeneutic phenomenology also use theory to focus the inquiry and explain findings [ 23 ]. So, in this context, we encourage ECRs to develop their awareness of the underpinning philosophical foundations of their chosen methodology and its stance on theory, and to engage with examples of published research to identify how others utilising a similar methodology have used theory. Therefore, our third set of considerations (summarised in Table ​ Table1) 1 ) relates to engaging with theory in the context of methodology.

Consider the fit between theory and unit of analysis

There are two elements relating to the unit of analysis. Firstly, the unit of analysis pertains to the level at which a researcher is intending to examine a research phenomenon. Crotty’s [ 9 ] multi-level framework is a useful way to frame the different levels at which a phenomenon can be explored, which is at the level of the: individual or groups (micro-level); organisations/workplaces or medium sized networks (meso-level); or systems or large networks (macro-system). At the micro or individual level, the focus is mainly on the individual and their motivations, learning, performance, and development etc., and theories used at this level include mainly psychological and educational theories. At the micro-level, there can also be a focus on groups or small networks and their interactions, processes, social practices, identity etc., with social psychology, socio-cultural, sociological, social network theories being used. At the meso or organisational level, the focus is on structures and systems within organisations and mid-level networks, and organisational, cultural, socio-cultural, and ecological theories are commonly used at this level. At the macro level, there is a broader focus on systems and large networks, and theories used at this level can include activity theory, systems theory, and complexity theory etc.

Secondly, the unit of analysis can also pertain to whether a researcher is specifically seeking to unravel the impact of power, race, gender, politics, history and culture on phenomena (across micro, meso or macro levels). This would require the use of theories which are critical or emancipatory in nature, such as critical, feminist, intersectional, or postcolonial theory. As discussed earlier, using a critical or emancipatory lens can decolonise and diversify the theoretical knowledge and perspectives represented in the HPE literature [ 5 , 6 ]. By critically and deeply reflecting on their motivations and values with regards to a research study [ 17 ] ECRs can clarify their unit of analysis. As such, our fourth set of considerations (listed in Table ​ Table1) 1 ) relates to identifying the alignment between unit of analysis and theory.

Consider when theory is used and associated implications

Theory can be used deductively or inductively [ 2 ]. When used deductively, theory guides all parts of the process, including conceptualisation, planning and execution of the research [ 2 ]. Using theory deductively requires ECRs to outline how the chosen theory has informed the framing of their research problem, the wording of the research aims and questions, and the methods of data collection and analysis. It is important for ECRs to understand that while the deductive approach implies there is a logical and linear way to use theory, initial theoretical understandings are often extended and adjusted as researchers engage in the research process. This includes the processes of collecting and analysing data, applying a theory, critically reflecting on the use of theory, writing up their work [ 2 ], and considering the interplay between pre-existing theory and emergent theory [ 21 ].

Theory can also be used inductively which involves applying it in the latter stages of data analysis [ 2 ]. With this approach, data is first interpreted in an open and exploratory manner using approaches like thematic analysis [ 24 ] or framework analysis [ 25 ] enabling the identification of preliminary themes. Then a theory-informed analysis is undertaken using a theory that is chosen based on preliminary impressions of the data and engagement with the literature. This inductive approach is also common in secondary analyses where researchers apply theory to interpret research data that has already been collected. With both deductive and inductive approaches, it is important for HPE researchers to show they have engaged critically and comprehensively with theory in justifying their choice of theory (or theories). As such, our fifth set of considerations (outlined in Table ​ Table1) 1 ) relates to considering when theory is used in the research process and associated implications.

Consider the complexities of how theory is written up

In the HPE research manuscript, theory can be presented in three different ways. In some papers, theory is introduced and described in the Background/Introduction section as a way of framing the research, revisited in the Methods as part of the data collection and analysis, and explained further in the Discussion in terms of the contributions and implications of using theory. This approach is common in both studies where theory is used deductively or inductively, highlighting the complexities of balancing what was done in the research process (which is highly flexible and non-linear) and the reporting of a research study (which demands a logical and linear approach). We discuss this aspect later. In other papers, theory is first presented in the Methods section as a lens for data interpretation and then in the Discussion section as a way of considering the significance of findings and implications. This is common in studies using an inductive approach but may run the risk of reviewers critiquing the transparency and consistency of a paper [ 26 ]. Finally, entry-level research mostly only refers to theory in the Discussion section as a way of highlighting the implications of a study, but this approach does not fully leverage the possibilities offered by the use of theory [ 1 – 4 ].

In reporting their work, researchers need to balance between what they have done in the research process (logic-in-use) with how they ‘formulate, articulate, analyse, or evaluate’ what they have done (reconstructed logic) [ 27 ]. Logic-in-use is a highly flexible and non-linear process involving juggling between the interrelated elements of ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology across the entire research process [ 9 ]. In contrast, reconstructed logic involves researchers developing linear and logical narratives about their work in which theory is often presented earlier as part of the framing of a study and separated from methodology and paradigm. Reconstructed logic means that even in studies where theory may have been used inductively and applied at the stage of data collection, a linear narrative can create an impression that the theory was known all along [ 28 ]. This highlights the complexities of balancing logic-in-use and reconstructed logic in the write-up phase. As advised earlier, consulting examples of original research articles can help ECRs to discern the different ways in which theory is presented in a research manuscript and how to report theory in a way that is fit for purpose for their research. So, our last set of considerations (outlined in Table ​ Table1) 1 ) relates to considering the complexities of how theory is written up.

Using theory in HPE research holds significant benefits for the individual researcher, research teams and communities, and the discipline of HPE. Therefore upskilling in theory use is vital for all HPE researchers. We hope the guidance provided here supports new and emerging researchers across the globe to enhance their capacity to discern, enhance, and critique theoretical quality in HPE research.

Authors’ contributions

KK wrote the first draft. All other authors contributed to revising the manuscript. All authors have approved the final manuscript for submission.

Declarations

Not applicable.

All authors declare they have no competing interests. All authors are or have been Associate or Section Editors for BMC Medical Education. No funding has been received for this work.

Publisher’s Note

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

• 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: May 20, 2024 9:47 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Theoretical Framework

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• 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
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge, within the limits of the 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 which explains why the research problem under study exists.

Importance of Theory

A theoretical framework consists of concepts, together with their definitions, and existing theory/theories that are 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 will relate it to the broader fields of knowledge in the class you are taking.

The theoretical framework is not something that is found readily available in the literature . You must review course readings and pertinent research literature 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 move from simply describing a phenomenon observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
• Having a theory helps you to identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest. It alerts you to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.

By virtue of its application nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because it fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges of 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; Drafting an Argument . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

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 on 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 answers to your research question.
• List  the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these variables into independent and dependent categories.
• Review the key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings and choose the theory or theories 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, understanding concepts and variables according to the given definitions, and building 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 the 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,
• Way of telling us that certain facts among the accumulated knowledge 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 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; 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, you are expected to test the validity of an 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 between 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 growing split between southern and northern Sudan that may likely lead 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 . Given this, it is perhaps easiest to understand the nature and function of a theoretical framework if it is viewed as the 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 could choose 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 .

In writing 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 . 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 framework you've chosen is the appropriate one.
• The present tense is used when writing about theory.
• 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 limitiations of the theoretical framework you've chosen [i.e., what parts of the research problem require further investigation because the theory does not explain 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); Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

A growing and increasingly important trend in the social sciences is to think about and attempt to understand specific research problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. One way to do this is to not rely exclusively on the theories you've read about in a particular class, 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 incumbants 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 fully engaged in the research topic.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

Never leave the theory hanging out there in the Introduction never to be mentioned again. Undertheorizing weakens your paper. The theoretical framework you introduce should guide your study throughout the paper. Be sure to always connect theory to the analysis and to explain in the discussion part of your paper how the theoretical framework you chose fit the research problem, or if appropriate, was inadequate in explaining the phenomenon you were investigating. In that case, don't be afraid to propose your own theory based on your findings.

Still Another Writing Tip

What's a Theory? What's a Hypothesis?

The terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably in everyday use. However, the difference between them 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 hypotheses that are widely accepted [e.g., rational choice theory; grounded 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.

• << Previous: The Research Problem/Question
• Next: 5. The Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

The Research Question, Theories and Methods

• First Online: 29 March 2017

Cite this chapter

• Petri Mäntysaari 2  

548 Accesses

Scientific research is theory based. There are various kinds of discipline-specific requirements relating to the choice of theories, research questions and methods. In User-friendly Legal Science, the choice of the research question, the theoretical framework and the methods must reflect the discipline’s particular characteristics. There are fundamental differences between User-friendly Legal Science and other areas of legal science in this respect. These differences reflect the unique point of view of User-friendly Legal Science.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• 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

Strydom H ( 2014 ), p. 149.

For a review of ethical standards, see Glerup C, Horst M ( 2014 ). For the minimum requirements, see, for example, Torstendahl R ( 2005 ), p. 214.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine ( 1992 ) 2 Scientific Principles and Research Practices, pp. 36–39.

See, for example, Mæhle S ( 2015 ); Sandgren C ( 2005 ); Graver HP ( 2008 ); Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), pp. 127–128 and 152.

Quine WV ( 1975 ), pp. 75–76: “The channels by which, having learned observation sentences, we acquire theoretical language, are the very same channels by which observation lends evidence to scientific theory … We see, then, a strategy for investigating the relation of evidential support, between observation and scientific theory.”

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 3. See also ibid .

For socio-legal research, see Banakar R, Travers M ( 2005b ), p. 2.

Kaplan A ( 1964 ) § 1 p 4. For historiography, see Torstendahl R ( 2005 ), pp. 214–215.

Bourdieu P ( 1975 ), p. 21.

For the drawbacks of interdisciplinary research in this respect, see Banakar R, Travers M ( 2005b ), p. 6.

Bryman A ( 2007 ), p. 16.

See, for example, Wesel U ( 1974 ), p. 353 on the illusions of legal positivism.

For economics, see Friedman M ( 1953 ), p. 6: “Agreement about the economic consequences of the legislation might not produce complete agreement about its desirability, for differences might still remain about its political or social consequences; but, given agreement on objectives, it would certainly go a long way toward producing consensus.” For legal history, see Duss V ( 2012 ), p. 988: “Zunächst ist ein Konsens dahingehend zu konstatieren, dass sich eine Kritik der Methode ohne Kritik am Textinhalt als Unmöglichkeit darstellt. Die Frage danach, welche Funktion der Text erfülle, welcher Textgattung er angehöre, welchen Adressaten er im Auge habe, seien zwingend mitbestimmend für die Methodenwahl - eine Tatsache zu nennende Eigenheit von Texten, die sich nur schwerlich bis gar nicht von der Hand weisen lässt, wenn man die Performanz und die Funktion von Text im Auge behält.” For practice research, see Saurama E, Julkunen I ( 2012 ), p. 67: “In other words, practice research is value-laden.”

Saurama E, Julkunen I ( 2012 ), p. 70: “The Mertonian norms of science say that a researcher needs to seclude him or herself from the subject matter and neutralize her own influence on the field of study. We have identified this problem realizing that a researcher needs to be able to perform different kinds of mental transformations during the research. When gathering the research material, discussing, perceiving and interviewing, he or she might well identify him or herself with the work group and users, but the analysis of the material, must be based upon tried research methods.”

See, for example, Graver HP ( 2008 ), pp. 164–166; Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 152.

See, for example, Patel R, Davidson B ( 2012 ), p. 15.

See Gilbert N ( 2008 ), section 3.5 pp. 57–58.

Bryman A ( 2007 ), p. 6.

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 152 on historical research.

Strydom H ( 2014 ), p. 150: “The purposes of research have been described differently by different authors … The terms research designs, strategies, purposes, objectives, goals or aims are … used interchangeably by various authors.”

Strydom H ( 2014 ), p. 151 on the basis of a literature review: “More than one purpose can be delineated for the same study, but one will normally dominate a particular study …”.

Fouché CB, De Vos AS ( 2011 ), pp. 94–99.

Babbie E ( 2016 ), p. 90. See also Strydom H ( 2014 ).

Tracy SJ ( 2010 ), pp. 839: “… high quality qualitative methodological research is marked by (a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence.”

Ibid, pp. 840–841.

Davis MS ( 1971 ); Bartunek JM, Rynes SL, Ireland RD ( 2006 ), p. 11.

Sandberg J, Alvesson M ( 2011 ), pp. 28–29.

Alvesson M, Sandberg J ( 2011 ), p. 249.

Ibid, p. 247.

See Davis MS ( 1971 ); Davis MS ( 1986 ); Alvesson M, Sandberg J ( 2011 ), p. 247.

Alvesson M, Sandberg J ( 2011 ), p. 254. For the methodological principles for identifying, articulating, and challenging assumptions, see p. 256.

Ibid, p. 254.

Ibid, pp. 254–255.

See ibid , pp. 254 and 256.

For management accounting, see Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A ( 1993 ), p. 246.

Peirce CS ( 1931–1935 ), 1.54.

See, for example, Mäntysaari P ( 2012 ), pp. 69–74.

See Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 121 on historical research.

Ibid , p. 119.

See, for example, Fallon RH Jr. ( 1999 ), p. 562: “… I have argued that the selection of a constitutional theory should be based largely on instrumental grounds. Among theories satisfying a fit requirement, the best will be that which most optimally promotes mixed, weighted interests in the rule of law, political democracy, and appropriately specified substantive rights.”

Mæhle SS ( 2015 ), p. 157.

Mäntysaari P ( 2013 ); Mäntysaari ( 2015 ); Mäntysaari P ( 2016b ).

See Mäntysaari P ( 2010a ); Mäntysaari P ( 2012 ).

For method theories, see Lukka K, Vinnari E ( 2014 ); Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 1 p. 4.

See, for example, Olsen L ( 2004 ), pp. 130–131.

For interpretive management accounting research, see Elharidy AM, Nicholson B, Scapens RW ( 2008 ), p. 142: “… IMAR is eclectic, as it draws on various research methods, theoretical frameworks and perspectives to provide better understandings or explanations of the substantive research phenomena. To achieve understanding, interpretive researchers study diversity …” For legal history, see Duss V ( 2012 ), p. 989: “Weiter wurde die Frage nach dem theoriegeleiteten Arbeiten erneut diskutiert, also der Übernahme fachfremder (?) theoretischer Konzepte. Es scheint mittlerweile als Geschmacksache empfunden zu werden, ob und welche Theorien (Luhmann, Derrida, Bourdieu, Foucault u. a.) man den anverwandten Disziplinen entleiht, solange man über Theorieapplikation, Umfang des sowie Gründe für den Eklektizismus Rechenschaft ablegt.”

See Whaples R, Morris AP, Moorhouse JC ( 1998 ); Fleischer H ( 2001 ).

See, for example, Duss V ( 2012 ), p. 989.

See already Augustine of Hippo , De doctrina christiana, Third Book, XXX.

See also Ross A ( 1958 ), p. 20: “The social phenomena which are the subject of sociology of law do not acquire their specific legal character until they are placed in relation to the norms of the law in force.”

See Mäntysaari P ( 2010b ).

Bryman A ( 2008 ), p. 160: “‘Methods’ might be instruments of data collection like questionnaires, interviews or observation; they might refer to the tools used for analysing data, which might be statistical techniques or extracting themes from unstructured data; or the term might refer to aspects of the research process like sampling.”

Mæhle SS ( 2015 ), p. 127 on the legal research process generally.

Bryman A ( 2008 ), p. 160: “It is concerned with uncovering the practices and assumptions of those who use methods of different kinds.” Mæhle SS ( 2015 ), p. 127: “Sett i dette perspektivet er forskningsmetodikk det teoretiske grunnlaget og de refleksjonene som ligger til grunn for valg av metode(r) som trengs for å gjennomføre forskningsarbeidet.”

In linear and positivist research, however, it is assumed that one can both choose the method and scuritinise it ex ante.

Torstendahl R ( 2005 ), p. 215.

See also Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 4 p. 28.

Feyerabend PK ( 1975 ).

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 163.

Weber M ( 1922 ).

Popper K ( 2005 ), number 85.

There is a similar distinction even in natural sciences. Ross A ( 1958 ), pp. 319–320.

Weber M ( 1904 ), p. 148: “… denn wir sind der Meinung, daß es niemals Aufgabe einer Erfahrungswissenschaft sein kann, bindende Normen und Ideale zu ermitteln, um daraus für die Praxis Rezepte ableiten zu können.”

Ross A ( 1958 ), p. 20: “The social phenomena which are the subject of sociology of law do not acquire their specific legal character until they are placed in relation to the norms of the law in force.”

Moorhead R ( 2010 ).

La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW( 1998 ). See also Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A ( 2008 ); Djankov S, Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A ( 2003 ).

See, for example, Banakar R ( 2006 ), p. 76 on a study in legal sociology: “Why is he focusing on the discourses of legal theory, if his intention is to examine the ‘standpoint of legal actors’ and legal processes through which political values are transformed into legal concepts.”

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 129.

Giddens A ( 1979 ), p. 230; Giddens A ( 1988 ), p. 416. See also Subrt J ( 2012 ), pp. 403–404.

von Ranke L ( 1885 ), p. VII: “Man hat der Historie das Amt, die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, beigemessen: so hoher Ämter unterbindet sich gegenwärtiger Versuch nicht: er will blos zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen.”

Goldthorpe JH ( 1991 ), p. 212.

Posner RA ( 2002 ), p. 1314.

See even Mäntysaari P ( 2013 ).

Zweigert K, Kötz H ( 1996 ), § 3 II: “Grundsätzlich ist bei der Durchforschung ausländischer Rechte jegliche Beschränkung zu meiden. Das gilt namentlich für die Frage, was alles als ‘Rechtsquelle’ heranzuziehen ist. Rechtsquelle im Sinne rechtsvergleichender Forschung ist alles, was das Rechtsleben der herangezogenen Ordnung gestaltet oder mitgestaltet.”

For source pluralism generally, see Ehrlich E ( 1912 /1967); Teubner G ( 1997 ); Myrdal J ( 2007 ).

Compare Dagan H ( 2011 ), p. xviii: “For legal realists, the profound and inescapable reason for doctrinal indeterminacy is the availability of multiple and potentially applicable doctrinal sources.” For legal history, see Berman HJ ( 1983 ), p. 8: “… the law includes not only legal institutions, legal commands, legal decisions, and the like, but also what legal scholes … say about those legal institutions, commands, and decisions. The law contains within itself a legal science, a meta-law, by which it can be both analyzed and evaluated.”

Cases are relevant regardless of connections to a certain legal family and the civil law or common law traditions. See, for example, Guével D ( 2012 ), p. 34, Introduction, III, 2, no 47: “Comme toutes les autres branches du droit francais, conformément à notre tradition romaniste, le droit commercial et des affaires a pour source principale les textes. C’est une source officielle et le support privilégié d’un droit, non pas fait de “cases” à l’anglo-saxonne, mais de règles de principe, éventuellement assorties de temperaments et d’exceptions. Les textes sont traditionellement classes hiérarchiquement.”

You can find an example in Mäntysaari P ( 2005 ), section 2.3 and Mäntysaari P ( 2010a ), section 8.2.

Husa J ( 2009 ), p. 477.

See, for example, Bryman A ( 2011 ); Lundahl U, Skärvad PH ( 1999 ).

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 159: “När vi tolkar skriftliga källor ägnar vi oss oftast åt någon form av kvalitativ metod. Här handlar det om att uttolka textens mening eller djupare innebörd.”

See also Sandgren C ( 2005 ), pp. 316–317.

See, for example, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW ( 1998 ) in which the authors focused on particular issues according to their own preferences.

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME ( 2007 ), Pratt MG ( 2009 ).

Generally, see Scapens RW ( 1990 ); Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ).

Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 2 p. 14.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 26.

According to Glaser and Strauss, concepts should be analytic and sensitizing. Ibid , pp. 38–39.

Ibid , p. 5: “[G]rounded theory is derived from data and then illustrated by characteristic examples of data.” Ibid , p. 23: “In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence; then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept.”

See already Augustine of Hippo , De doctrina christiana, Third Book, XXV.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 5 on “exampling”.

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME ( 2007 ), p. 26.

Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), pp. 119–120.

Ibid, p. 120.

Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 38 p. 332.

Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), p. 120.

Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 41 p. 351; Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), p. 120.

Ibid , p. 120.

Ibid , p. 121.

See, for example, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW ( 1998 ) in which the authors gave particular facts a numerical value according to their own preferences.

Bryant JM ( 1994 ), pp. 13–14: “[A]ll works of historiography are woven from two distinguishable strands: what might be called reportage on the one hand, and interpretation on the other. Reportage consists of information that pertains to basic questions of what, where, when, who, how many, etc. … Interpretation involves establishing the meaning and the significance of these historical ‘facts’, i.e., the materials that constitute reportage … Historical sociologists … thus encounter primary materials in the reportage of historians …” See also Subrt J ( 2012 ), p. 405.

Kelsen H ( 1934 ).

Compare White JB ( 2002 ), p. 1398: “Truth has a place in the law, a crucially important place, but it is hard to see and explain what this is.”

Wittgenstein L ( 1922 ), 1.13: “Die Tatsachen im logischen Raum sind die Welt.” 2.1: “Wir machen uns Bilder der Tatsachen.” 2.14: “Das Bild besteht darin, dass sich seine Elemente in bestimmter Art und Weise zu einander verhalten.” 2.12: “Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit.” 2.21: “Das Bild stimmt mit der Wirklichkeit überein oder nicht; es ist richtig oder unrichtig, wahr oder falsch.” 2.06: “Das Bestehen und Nichtbestehen von Sachverhalten ist die Wirklichkeit. (Das Bestehen von Sachverhalten nennen wir auch eine positive, das Nichtbestehen eine negative Tatsache.)” 2.063: “Die gesamte Wirklichkeit ist die Welt.”

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 32 (theory as process); Peirce CS ( 1931–1935 ), 3.432.

Fleck L ( 1979 ) Chapter 2, Section 1. Originally published in 1935.

Kuhn TS ( 1962 ).

Johansson LG ( 2015 ), p. 103.

See Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), pp. 8–9.

See Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 16.

Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2; Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), p. 1281.

For the linear model, see Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E, Welch C ( 2010 ), p. 110.

Yin defines “construct validity” as “establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied”. Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2.

Yin defines “internal validity” as something limited to explanatory or causal studies. It means “establishing a causal relationship”. Ibid, Chapter 2.

Yin defines “reliability” as “demonstrating that the operations of a study - such as the data collection procedures - can be repeated, with the same results”. Ibid, Chapter 2.

See Miles MB ( 1979 ); Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), pp. 1281–1282.

See Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), p. 1282.

See ibid , p. 1282 on qualitative case research: “These conditions result in uncertainty about how to conduct ‘good’ case research and how to convince reviewers, editors, and the broader audience of readers of the real value of qualitative research and single case studies. There are certain problems in persuading advocates of the positivist school about the benefits of a research process in which frameworks evolve during the course of the study … Therefore, in order to convince the scientific community, qualitative researchers have to fight ‘an uphill battle to persuade their readers’ …”.

Ibid , p. 1282 on qualitative case research.

Wittgenstein L ( 1922 ), Vorwort.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), pp. 228–233.

See also Tracy SJ ( 2010 ), p. 839 on the characteristics of “high quality qualitative methodological research”.

See European Commission ( 2010 , 2013 ). See also European Science Foundation, ALLEA ( 2011 ), Section 1.2.

European Science Foundation, ALLEA ( 2011 ), Section 1.3.

According to Tracy SJ ( 2010 ), p. 848, “meaningful coherence” means that qualitative studies should “(a) achieve their stated purpose; (b) accomplish what they espouse to be about; (c) use methods and representations practices that partner well with espoused theories and paradigms; and (d) attentively interconnect literature reviewed with research foci, methods, and findings”.

Torstendahl R ( 2005 ); Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), pp. 150–151.

For thought processes, see James Joyce’s Ulysses.

See Bourdieu P ( 1992 ), Part II, I.

A Bourdieu is a Bourdieu.

Peirce CS ( 1931–1935 ), 3.432.

See also Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), pp. 224–225.

A couple of examples: Saint Augustine ( Augustine of Hippo ) referred to Virgil several times in his major work De civitate Dei. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to Augustine (Saint Augustine), Damascene (Saint John Damascene), Philosopher (Aristoteles), and Apostle (Paul) when discussing the existence of God in his work Summa Theologica. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) referred to prior theory in his biography of Jesus of Nazareth. This was regardless of the dogma of papal infallibility.

Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2.

See, for example, Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A ( 1993 ), p. 258: “The main condition of validity of constructions is clearly that they work (i.e., solve the problems in question).”

See, for example, Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), pp. 121–126.

Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), p. 1282, citing Ruddin LP ( 2006 ).

Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2, defining “construct validity” as “establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied”, “internal validity” as “establishing a causal relationship”, and “external validity” as “establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized”.

See, for example, Torstendahl R ( 2005 ); Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 149; Johansson LG ( 2015 ) section 4.5 .

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 149.

Ibid , pp. 151–152.

See, for example, ibid , p. 151.

Merton RK ( 1968 ); Boudon R ( 1991 ).

For management accounting, see Lukka K, Kasanen E ( 1995 ), p. 72: “These generalized conclusions may be of several types: − conceptual frameworks, which offer us the possibility to discuss the subject area in general; − descriptive models, attempting to show ‘how things are’ in the problem field, covering more objects than the studied ones; − explanatory models, which attempt to capture the significant general relationships in the subject area; − prescriptive models, offering solutions to practical problems and guidance for further decision making in other similar, or corresponding, organizations.”

MacIntyre A ( 2007 ), p. 121 (generally): “They will be prefaced not by universal quantifiers but by some such phrase as ‘characteristically and for the most part…’ But just these … turned out to be the characteristics of the generalizations which actual empirical social scientists claim with good reason to have discovered.” Lukka K, Kasanen E ( 1995 ), p. 73 (management accounting).

Weber M ( 1904 ), II.

Peirce CS ( 1931−1935 ), 3.432.

Durkheim É ( 1894 ), Chapter III.

Lukka K, Kasanen E ( 1995 ), p. 82.

Ibid, p. 76.

Popper K ( 2005 ), numbers 36, 38 and 43.

Yates SJ ( 2004 ), p. 15: “Theories in social sciences can vary between abstract general approaches (such as functionalism) and fairly low-level theories to explain specific phenomena (such as voting behaviour, delinquency, aggressiveness). By and large, the theories that are most likely to receive empirical attention are those which are at a fairly low level of generality.”

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 242.

Alvesson M, Sandberg J (2011) Generating research questions through problematization. Acad Manag Rev 36(2):247–271

Google Scholar  

Augustine of Hippo (426–427) De doctrina christiana

Babbie E (2016) The practice of social research, 14th edn. Cengage Learning, Boston

Banakar R (2006) How can sociology and jurisprudence learn from each other? A reply to Mauro Zamboni. Retfærd 29(2):75–84

Banakar R, Travers M (2005b) Law, sociology and method. In: Banakar R, Travers M (eds) Theory and method in socio-legal research. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon, pp 1–25

Bartunek JM, Rynes SL, Ireland RD (2006) What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Acad Manag J 49(1):9–15

Article   Google Scholar  

Berglund L, Ney A (2015) Historikerns hantverk: Om historieskrivning, teori och metod. Studentlitteratur, Lund

Berman HJ (1983) Law and revolution: the formation of the Western legal tradition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Boudon R (1991) What middle-range theories are. Contemp Sociol (Am Sociol Assoc) 20(4):519–522

Bourdieu P (1975) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Soc Sci Inf 14(6):19–47. doi: 10.1177/053901847501400602

Bourdieu P (1992) Les règles de l'art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire. Seuil, Paris

Bryant JM (1994) Evidence and explanation in history and sociology: critical reflections on goldthorpe’s critique of historical sociology. Br J Sociol 45(1):3–19

Bryman A (2007) The research question in social research: what is its role? Int J Soc Res Methodol 10:5–20

Bryman A (2008) Of methods and methodology. Qual Res Organ Manage Int J 3(2):159–168

Bryman A (2011) Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Liber, Malmö

Dagan H (2011) Property: values and institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Book   Google Scholar  

Davis MS (1971) That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philos Soc Sci 1(4):309–344

Davis MS (1986) That’s classic! The phenomenology and rhetoric of successful social theories. Philos Soc Sci 16(3):285–301

Djankov S, Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2003) The new comparative economics. J Comp Econ 31:595–619

Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2008) The law and economics of self-dealing. J Financ Econ 88:430–465

Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014) “Systematic combining”–A decade later. J Bus Res 67:1277–1284

Durkheim É (1894) Les régles de la méthode sociologique. Revue philosophique

Duss V (2012) Chronik. Arbeitskreis “Augen der Rechtsgeschichte”. Fünftes Symposium zur Methode der Rechtsgeschichte. Einsiedeln 20.–22. Januar 2011. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung 129(1):986–990. doi: 10.7767/zrgga.2012.129.1.986

Ehrlich E (1912/1967) Das lebende Recht der Völker der Bukowina. Reprinted In: Rehbinder M (ed) Eugen Ehrlich, Recht und Leben, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 43–60

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32

Elharidy AM, Nicholson B, Scapens RW (2008) Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research. Qual Res Acc Manage 5(2):139–155. doi: 10.1108/11766090810888935

European Commission (2010) European textbook on ethics in research. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2777/17442

European Commission (2013) Ethics for researchers: facilitating research excellence in FP7. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2777/7491

European Science Foundation, ALLEA (2011) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg

Fallon RH Jr (1999) How to choose a constitutional theory. Calif Law Rev 87(3):535–579

Feyerabend PK (1975) Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Humanities Press, London

Fleck L (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Originally published in German as Fleck L (1935) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Schwabe, Basel

Fleischer H (2001) Grundfragen der ökonomischen Theorie im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 30(1):1–32

Fouché CB, De Vos AS (2011) Formal formulations. In: De Vos AS, Strydom H, Fouché CB, Delport CSL (eds) Research at grass roots: for the social sciences and human service professions. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria, pp 89–100

Friedman M (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M (ed) Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 3–43

Giddens A (1979) Central problems in social theory. Macmillan, London

Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Oxford, and University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles

Giddens A (1988) Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Strukturierung. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main [German translation of Giddens A (1984)]

Gilbert N (ed) (2008) Researching social life, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

Glerup C, Horst M (2014) Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. J Responsible Innov 1(1):31–50. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882077

Goldthorpe JH (1991) The uses of history in sociology: reflections on some recent tendencies. Br J Sociol 42:211–230

Graver HP (2008) Vanlig juridisk metode? Om rettsdogmatikken som juridisk sjanger. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 121(2):149–178

Guével D (2012) Droit de commerce et des affaires, 4e edn. LGDJ, Paris

Husa J (2009) Theorie der Rechtsvergleichung als Rechtsphilosophie. Rechtstheorie 40:473–492

Johansson LG (2015) Introduktion till vetenskapsteorin. Tredje upplagan, andra tryckningen. Bokförlaget Thales, Stockholm

Kaplan A (1964) The conduct of inquiry: methodology for behavioral science. Chandler Publishing Company, New York

Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A (1993) The constructive approach in management accounting research. J Manag Account Res 5:243–264

Kelsen H (1934) Reine Rechtslehre: Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik, 1. Aufl. Deuticke, Leipzig Wien. Jestaedt M (ed) (2008) Studienausgabe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106(6):1113–1155

Lukka K, Kasanen E (1995) The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research. Acc Audit Account J 8(5):71–90 doi: 10.1108/09513579510147733

Lukka K, Vinnari E (2014) Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Account Audit Account J 27(8):1308–1338

Lundahl U, Skärvad PH (1999) Utredningsmetodik för samhällsvetare och ekonomer. Studentlitteratur, Lund

MacIntyre A (2007) After virtue. A study in moral theory, 3rd edn. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana

Mæhle SS (2015) Rettsvitenskapelig forskningsmetodikk – i lys av grunnleggende forskningsverdier. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 128(2):125–157

Mäntysaari P (2005) Comparative corporate governance: shareholders as a rule-maker. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2010a) The law of corporate finance: general principles and EU law. Volume I: cash flow, risk, agency, information. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2010b) The law of corporate finance: general principles and EU law. Volume II: contracts in general. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2012) Organising the firm: theories of commercial law, corporate governance and corporate law. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2013) Was sollte man tun? Ein Plädoyer für anwenderfreundliche Rechtswissenschaft. Rechtstheorie 44(2):189–207. doi: 10.3790/rth.44.2.189

Mäntysaari P (2015) EU electricity trade law: the legal tools of electricity producers in the internal electricity market. Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16513-4

Mäntysaari P (2016) Oikeudenaloista tieteenaloihin. Lakimies 114(2):297–304

Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New York

Miles MB (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis. Adm Sci Q 24(4):590–601. doi: 10.2307/2392365

Moorhead R (2010) Lawyer specialization – managing the professional paradox. Law Policy 32(2):226–259

Myrdal J (2007) Källpluralismen och dess inkluderande metodpaket. Historisk tidskrift 127(3):495–504

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992) Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process, vol I. The National Academies Press, Washington. doi: 10.17226/1864

Olsen L (2004) Rättsvetenskapliga perspektiv. Svensk Juristtidning 89(2):105–145

Patel R, Davidson B (2012) Forskningsmetodikens grunder: Att planera, genomföra och rapportera en undersökning. Fjärde upplagan, Studentlitteratur, Lund

Peirce CS (1931–1935) The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols I–VI. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P (eds) Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E, Welch C (2010) ‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing: insights from research practice. Ind Mark Manag 39:109–117

Popper K (2005) Logik der Forschung. 11. Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Posner RA (2002) Legal scholarship today. Harv Law Rev 115(5):1314–1326

Pratt MG (2009) For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and rewriting) qualitative research. Acad Manag J 52(5):856–862

Quine WV (1975) The nature of natural knowledge. In: Guttenplan S (ed) Mind and language. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 67–81

Ross A (1958) On law and justice. Stevens & Sons, London

Ruddin LP (2006) You can generalize stupid! social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg and case study methodology. Qual Inq 12(4):797–812. doi: 10.1177/1077800406288622

Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992) Research method and methodology in finance and accounting. Academic Press, London

Sandberg J, Alvesson M (2011) Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? Organization 18:23–44. doi: 10.1177/1350508410372151

Sandgren C (2005) Om teoribildning och rättsvetenskap. Juridisk Tidskrift 16(2):297–333

Saurama E, Julkunen I (2012) Approaching practice research in theory and practice. Soc Work Soc Sci Rev 15(2):57–75. doi: 10.1921/095352211X636502

Scapens RW (1990) Researching management accounting practice: the role of case study methods. Br Account Rev 22(3):259–281

Strydom H (2014) An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 49(2):149–164. doi: 10.15270/49-2-58

Subrt J (2012) History and sociology: what is historical sociology? In: Erasga D (ed) Sociological landscape-theories, realities and trends. Intechopen. Chapter 12, pp 403–416. doi: 10.5772/38816

Teubner G (1997) Global Bukowina: legal pluralism in the world-society. In: Teubner G (ed) (1997) Global law without a state. Aldershot, Dartmouth, pp 3–28

Torstendahl R (2005) Källkritik, metod och vetenskap. Historisk tidskrift 125(2):209–217

Tracy SJ (2010) Qualitative quality: eight “Big Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq 16(1):837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121

von Ranke L (1885) Sämtliche Werke. Bd. 33/34. Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig

Weber M (1904) Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19(1):22–87

Weber M (1922) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft – Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie. J.C.B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen

Wesel U (1974) Zur Methode der Rechtsgeschichte. Kritische Justiz 7(4):337–368

Whaples R, Morris AP, Moorhouse JC (1998) What should lawyers know about economics? J Leg Educ 48:120–124

White JB (2002) Legal knowledge. Harv Law Rev 115(5):1396–1431

Wittgenstein L (1922) Tractatus Logico-philosophicus: Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Kegan Paul, London

Yates SJ (2004) Doing social science research. SAGE Publications, London

Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts, 3. neubearbeitete Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Accounting and Commercial Law, Hanken School of Economics, Vaasa, Finland

Petri Mäntysaari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Mäntysaari, P. (2017). The Research Question, Theories and Methods. In: User-friendly Legal Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53492-3_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53492-3_3

Published : 29 March 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-53491-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-53492-3

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Theory – Definition, Types and Examples

Theory – Definition, Types and Examples

Table of Contents

Definition:

Theory is a set of ideas or principles used to explain or describe a particular phenomenon or set of phenomena. The term “theory” is commonly used in the scientific context to refer to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on empirical evidence and rigorous testing.

Types of Theories

Types of Theories are as follows:

Scientific Theories

These are theories that explain natural phenomena and are based on empirical evidence. Examples include the theory of evolution, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of relativity.

Social Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain social phenomena, such as human behavior, culture, and society. Examples include social learning theory, structural functionalism, and feminist theory.

Psychological Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain human behavior and mental processes. Examples include behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and psychoanalysis.

Economic Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain economic phenomena, such as the behavior of markets, businesses, and consumers. Examples include supply and demand theory, Keynesian economics, and game theory.

Political Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain political phenomena, such as the behavior of governments, political systems, and international relations. Examples include liberalism, conservatism, and Marxism.

Philosophical Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain fundamental concepts, such as the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality. Examples include existentialism, utilitarianism, and metaphysics.

Mathematical Theories

These are theories that use mathematical concepts and models to explain phenomena in various fields, such as physics, economics, and computer science. Examples include set theory, probability theory, and game theory.

Communication Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain the processes and effects of communication, such as the transmission of information, the influence of media, and the development of language. Examples include social penetration theory, media effects theory, and speech act theory.

Biological Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain biological phenomena, such as the functioning of the human body, genetics, and evolution. Examples include the theory of natural selection, the germ theory of disease, and the central dogma of molecular biology.

Environmental Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain the interactions between humans and the natural environment, including the effects of human activities on the environment and the impact of environmental changes on human society. Examples include ecological systems theory, environmental determinism, and sustainability theory.

Educational Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain the processes and effects of learning and education. Examples include behaviorism, constructivism, and social learning theory.

Cultural Theories

These are theories that attempt to explain cultural phenomena, such as the formation and transmission of cultural values, norms, and beliefs. Examples include cultural studies, postcolonial theory, and critical race theory.

Examples of Theories

There are many theories in various fields of study. Here are some examples of theories in different areas:

• Evolutionary Theory: The theory of evolution by natural selection, proposed by Charles Darwin, explains how species change over time in response to their environment.
• Quantum Theory : Quantum theory is the branch of physics that describes the behavior of matter and energy on a very small scale.
• Social Learning Theory: Social learning theory suggests that people learn by observing and imitating the behaviors of others.
• Chaos Theory: Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics that studies complex systems and how they can exhibit unpredictable behavior.
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory : This theory explains how people often experience discomfort or tension when their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are inconsistent with each other.
• Attachment Theory: Attachment theory explains how early relationships between infants and their caregivers can shape their emotional and social development later in life.
• General Relativity: General relativity is a theory of gravitation that explains how the force of gravity arises from the curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects.
• Game Theory: Game theory is a mathematical approach used to model and analyze the strategic interactions between individuals or groups.
• Self-Determination Theory: This theory suggests that people are motivated by three fundamental needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
• Systems Theory: Systems theory is a framework for understanding complex systems that emphasizes their interdependence, feedback loops, and dynamic behavior.

Applications of Theories

Applications of Theories are as follows:

• Science : Scientific theories are used to develop new technologies, create new medicines, and explore the natural world. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection is used to understand the diversity of life on Earth, while the theory of relativity is used to develop new technologies such as GPS.
• Psychology : Theories of psychology are used to understand human behavior and to develop effective therapies. For example, the theory of cognitive dissonance helps us to understand why people resist changing their beliefs, while the theory of operant conditioning is used to help people change their behavior.
• Sociology : Sociological theories are used to understand social structures, institutions, and relationships. For example, the theory of social capital helps us to understand the importance of social networks in promoting economic and social development, while the theory of cultural capital explains how cultural knowledge and practices contribute to social inequality.
• Economics : Economic theories are used to understand markets, trade, and economic growth. For example, the theory of comparative advantage helps to explain why countries specialize in certain goods and services, while the theory of supply and demand helps us to understand the behavior of consumers and producers.
• Education : Theories of learning and teaching are used to develop effective educational practices. For example, the theory of constructivism emphasizes the importance of students constructing their own knowledge, while the theory of multiple intelligences suggests that students have different types of intelligence that should be recognized and nurtured.

Purpose of Theory

The purpose of a theory is to provide a framework or explanation for observed phenomena in a particular field of study. Theories are developed through a process of observation, experimentation, and analysis, and they are used to explain how and why things happen the way they do.

In science, theories are used to describe and predict natural phenomena, while in social sciences, theories are used to explain human behavior and social interactions. Theories can be tested through further observation and experimentation, and they can be modified or discarded if new evidence contradicts them.

Characteristics of Theory

• Explanation : Theories provide an explanation of a phenomenon or event. They identify the causes and underlying mechanisms that contribute to the observed outcomes.
• Predictive power: Theories have the ability to predict future outcomes or behaviors based on the identified causes and mechanisms.
• Testable: Theories are testable through empirical research. They can be subjected to observation, experimentation, and analysis to determine their validity and accuracy.
• Falsifiability : Theories can be falsified if they are found to be inconsistent with empirical evidence. This means that they can be proven to be false if the evidence does not support them.
• Generalizability : Theories are generalizable to other contexts and situations beyond the original research setting. They are not specific to a particular time or place.
• Organizing framework : Theories provide an organizing framework for understanding and interpreting information. They help researchers organize their observations and make sense of complex phenomena.
• Parsimony: Theories are typically simple and concise. They strive to explain phenomena using the fewest number of assumptions or variables possible.

Advantages of Theory

• Framework for research: Theories provide a framework for research by guiding the development of hypotheses and research questions.
• Organizing information: Theories help researchers organize their observations and make sense of complex phenomena. They provide a structure for understanding and interpreting information.
• Prediction: Theories can predict future outcomes or behaviors based on the identified causes and mechanisms.
• Understanding causality: Theories help researchers understand the causal relationships between variables and events.
• Integration of knowledge: Theories integrate existing knowledge and provide a foundation for new discoveries.
• Application : Theories can be applied to real-world problems to develop interventions and policies that address social issues.
• Communication: Theories provide a common language and understanding for researchers, which facilitates communication and collaboration.

Disadvantages of Theory

• Limited scope: Theories are limited by the scope of their research and the context in which they were developed. They may not be applicable to other contexts or situations beyond the original research setting.
• Simplification : Theories often simplify complex phenomena and may oversimplify or exclude important aspects of the phenomenon being studied.
• Bias : Theories can be influenced by researcher bias, which can affect the development and interpretation of the theory.
• Difficulty in testing: Some theories may be difficult to test empirically, making it challenging to determine their validity and accuracy.
• Incomplete understanding : Theories may provide an incomplete understanding of a phenomenon, as they are based on limited research and knowledge.
• Resistance to change : Theories can be resistant to change, making it challenging to update or revise them in light of new evidence.
• Inconsistency: Different theories within the same field may conflict with each other or present different explanations for the same phenomenon, leading to inconsistencies and confusion.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

What is Art – Definition, Types, Examples

What is Anthropology – Definition and Overview

What is Literature – Definition, Types, Examples

Economist – Definition, Types, Work Area

Anthropologist – Definition, Types, Work Area

What is History – Definitions, Periods, Methods

Chapter 4 Theories in Scientific Research

As we know from previous chapters, science is knowledge represented as a collection of “theories” derived using the scientific method. In this chapter, we will examine what is a theory, why do we need theories in research, what are the building blocks of a theory, how to evaluate theories, how can we apply theories in research, and also presents illustrative examples of five theories frequently used in social science research.

Theories are explanations of a natural or social behavior, event, or phenomenon. More formally, a scientific theory is a system of constructs (concepts) and propositions (relationships between those constructs) that collectively presents a logical, systematic, and coherent explanation of a phenomenon of interest within some assumptions and boundary conditions (Bacharach 1989). [1]

Theories should explain why things happen, rather than just describe or predict. Note that it is possible to predict events or behaviors using a set of predictors, without necessarily explaining why such events are taking place. For instance, market analysts predict fluctuations in the stock market based on market announcements, earnings reports of major companies, and new data from the Federal Reserve and other agencies, based on previously observed correlations . Prediction requires only correlations. In contrast, explanations require causations , or understanding of cause-effect relationships. Establishing causation requires three conditions: (1) correlations between two constructs, (2) temporal precedence (the cause must precede the effect in time), and (3) rejection of alternative hypotheses (through testing). Scientific theories are different from theological, philosophical, or other explanations in that scientific theories can be empirically tested using scientific methods.

Explanations can be idiographic or nomothetic. Idiographic explanations are those that explain a single situation or event in idiosyncratic detail. For example, you did poorly on an exam because: (1) you forgot that you had an exam on that day, (2) you arrived late to the exam due to a traffic jam, (3) you panicked midway through the exam, (4) you had to work late the previous evening and could not study for the exam, or even (5) your dog ate your text book. The explanations may be detailed, accurate, and valid, but they may not apply to other similar situations, even involving the same person, and are hence not generalizable. In contrast, nomothetic explanations seek to explain a class of situations or events rather than a specific situation or event. For example, students who do poorly in exams do so because they did not spend adequate time preparing for exams or that they suffer from nervousness, attention-deficit, or some other medical disorder. Because nomothetic explanations are designed to be generalizable across situations, events, or people, they tend to be less precise, less complete, and less detailed. However, they explain economically, using only a few explanatory variables. Because theories are also intended to serve as generalized explanations for patterns of events, behaviors, or phenomena, theoretical explanations are generally nomothetic in nature.

While understanding theories, it is also important to understand what theory is not. Theory is not data, facts, typologies, taxonomies, or empirical findings. A collection of facts is not a theory, just as a pile of stones is not a house. Likewise, a collection of constructs (e.g., a typology of constructs) is not a theory, because theories must go well beyond constructs to include propositions, explanations, and boundary conditions. Data, facts, and findings operate at the empirical or observational level, while theories operate at a conceptual level and are based on logic rather than observations.

There are many benefits to using theories in research. First, theories provide the underlying logic of the occurrence of natural or social phenomenon by explaining what are the key drivers and key outcomes of the target phenomenon and why, and what underlying processes are responsible driving that phenomenon. Second, they aid in sense-making by helping us synthesize prior empirical findings within a theoretical framework and reconcile contradictory findings by discovering contingent factors influencing the relationship between two constructs in different studies. Third, theories provide guidance for future research by helping identify constructs and relationships that are worthy of further research. Fourth, theories can contribute to cumulative knowledge building by bridging gaps between other theories and by causing existing theories to be reevaluated in a new light.

However, theories can also have their own share of limitations. As simplified explanations of reality, theories may not always provide adequate explanations of the phenomenon of interest based on a limited set of constructs and relationships. Theories are designed to be simple and parsimonious explanations, while reality may be significantly more complex. Furthermore, theories may impose blinders or limit researchers’ “range of vision,” causing them to miss out on important concepts that are not defined by the theory.

Building Blocks of a Theory

David Whetten (1989) suggests that there are four building blocks of a theory: constructs, propositions, logic, and boundary conditions/assumptions. Constructs capture the “what” of theories (i.e., what concepts are important for explaining a phenomenon), propositions capture the “how” (i.e., how are these concepts related to each other), logic represents the “why” (i.e., why are these concepts related), and boundary conditions/assumptions examines the “who, when, and where” (i.e., under what circumstances will these concepts and relationships work). Though constructs and propositions were previously discussed in Chapter 2, we describe them again here for the sake of completeness.

Constructs are abstract concepts specified at a high level of abstraction that are chosen specifically to explain the phenomenon of interest. Recall from Chapter 2 that constructs may be unidimensional (i.e., embody a single concept), such as weight or age, or multi-dimensional (i.e., embody multiple underlying concepts), such as personality or culture. While some constructs, such as age, education, and firm size, are easy to understand, others, such as creativity, prejudice, and organizational agility, may be more complex and abstruse, and still others such as trust, attitude, and learning, may represent temporal tendencies rather than steady states. Nevertheless, all constructs must have clear and unambiguous operational definition that should specify exactly how the construct will be measured and at what level of analysis (individual, group, organizational, etc.). Measurable representations of abstract constructs are called variables . For instance, intelligence quotient (IQ score) is a variable that is purported to measure an abstract construct called intelligence. As noted earlier, scientific research proceeds along two planes: a theoretical plane and an empirical plane. Constructs are conceptualized at the theoretical plane, while variables are operationalized and measured at the empirical (observational) plane. Furthermore, variables may be independent, dependent, mediating, or moderating, as discussed in Chapter 2. The distinction between constructs (conceptualized at the theoretical level) and variables (measured at the empirical level) is shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1. Distinction between theoretical and empirical concepts

Propositions are associations postulated between constructs based on deductive logic. Propositions are stated in declarative form and should ideally indicate a cause-effect relationship (e.g., if X occurs, then Y will follow). Note that propositions may be conjectural but MUST be testable, and should be rejected if they are not supported by empirical observations. However, like constructs, propositions are stated at the theoretical level, and they can only be tested by examining the corresponding relationship between measurable variables of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, is called hypotheses . The distinction between propositions (formulated at the theoretical level) and hypotheses (tested at the empirical level) is depicted in Figure 4.1.

The third building block of a theory is the logic that provides the basis for justifying the propositions as postulated. Logic acts like a “glue” that connects the theoretical constructs and provides meaning and relevance to the relationships between these constructs. Logic also represents the “explanation” that lies at the core of a theory. Without logic, propositions will be ad hoc, arbitrary, and meaningless, and cannot be tied into a cohesive “system of propositions” that is the heart of any theory.

Finally, all theories are constrained by assumptions about values, time, and space, and boundary conditions that govern where the theory can be applied and where it cannot be applied. For example, many economic theories assume that human beings are rational (or boundedly rational) and employ utility maximization based on cost and benefit expectations as a way of understand human behavior. In contrast, political science theories assume that people are more political than rational, and try to position themselves in their professional or personal environment in a way that maximizes their power and control over others. Given the nature of their underlying assumptions, economic and political theories are not directly comparable, and researchers should not use economic theories if their objective is to understand the power structure or its evolution in a organization. Likewise, theories may have implicit cultural assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to individualistic or collective cultures), temporal assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to early stages or later stages of human behavior), and spatial assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to certain localities but not to others). If a theory is to be properly used or tested, all of its implicit assumptions that form the boundaries of that theory must be properly understood. Unfortunately, theorists rarely state their implicit assumptions clearly, which leads to frequent misapplications of theories to problem situations in research.

Attributes of a Good Theory

Theories are simplified and often partial explanations of complex social reality. As such, there can be good explanations or poor explanations, and consequently, there can be good theories or poor theories. How can we evaluate the “goodness” of a given theory? Different criteria have been proposed by different researchers, the more important of which are listed below:

• Logical consistency : Are the theoretical constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, and assumptions logically consistent with each other? If some of these “building blocks” of a theory are inconsistent with each other (e.g., a theory assumes rationality, but some constructs represent non-rational concepts), then the theory is a poor theory.
• Explanatory power : How much does a given theory explain (or predict) reality? Good theories obviously explain the target phenomenon better than rival theories, as often measured by variance explained (R-square) value in regression equations.
• Falsifiability : British philosopher Karl Popper stated in the 1940’s that for theories to be valid, they must be falsifiable. Falsifiability ensures that the theory is potentially disprovable, if empirical data does not match with theoretical propositions, which allows for their empirical testing by researchers. In other words, theories cannot be theories unless they can be empirically testable. Tautological statements, such as “a day with high temperatures is a hot day” are not empirically testable because a hot day is defined (and measured) as a day with high temperatures, and hence, such statements cannot be viewed as a theoretical proposition. Falsifiability requires presence of rival explanations it ensures that the constructs are adequately measurable, and so forth. However, note that saying that a theory is falsifiable is not the same as saying that a theory should be falsified. If a theory is indeed falsified based on empirical evidence, then it was probably a poor theory to begin with!
• Parsimony : Parsimony examines how much of a phenomenon is explained with how few variables. The concept is attributed to 14 th century English logician Father William of Ockham (and hence called “Ockham’s razor” or “Occam’s razor), which states that among competing explanations that sufficiently explain the observed evidence, the simplest theory (i.e., one that uses the smallest number of variables or makes the fewest assumptions) is the best. Explanation of a complex social phenomenon can always be increased by adding more and more constructs. However, such approach defeats the purpose of having a theory, which are intended to be “simplified” and generalizable explanations of reality. Parsimony relates to the degrees of freedom in a given theory. Parsimonious theories have higher degrees of freedom, which allow them to be more easily generalized to other contexts, settings, and populations.

Approaches to Theorizing

How do researchers build theories? Steinfeld and Fulk (1990) [2] recommend four such approaches. The first approach is to build theories inductively based on observed patterns of events or behaviors. Such approach is often called “grounded theory building”, because the theory is grounded in empirical observations. This technique is heavily dependent on the observational and interpretive abilities of the researcher, and the resulting theory may be subjective and non -confirmable. Furthermore, observing certain patterns of events will not necessarily make a theory, unless the researcher is able to provide consistent explanations for the observed patterns. We will discuss the grounded theory approach in a later chapter on qualitative research.

The second approach to theory building is to conduct a bottom-up conceptual analysis to identify different sets of predictors relevant to the phenomenon of interest using a predefined framework. One such framework may be a simple input-process-output framework, where the researcher may look for different categories of inputs, such as individual, organizational, and/or technological factors potentially related to the phenomenon of interest (the output), and describe the underlying processes that link these factors to the target phenomenon. This is also an inductive approach that relies heavily on the inductive abilities of the researcher, and interpretation may be biased by researcher’s prior knowledge of the phenomenon being studied.

The third approach to theorizing is to extend or modify existing theories to explain a new context, such as by extending theories of individual learning to explain organizational learning. While making such an extension, certain concepts, propositions, and/or boundary conditions of the old theory may be retained and others modified to fit the new context. This deductive approach leverages the rich inventory of social science theories developed by prior theoreticians, and is an efficient way of building new theories by building on existing ones.

The fourth approach is to apply existing theories in entirely new contexts by drawing upon the structural similarities between the two contexts. This approach relies on reasoning by analogy, and is probably the most creative way of theorizing using a deductive approach. For instance, Markus (1987) [3] used analogic similarities between a nuclear explosion and uncontrolled growth of networks or network-based businesses to propose a critical mass theory of network growth. Just as a nuclear explosion requires a critical mass of radioactive material to sustain a nuclear explosion, Markus suggested that a network requires a critical mass of users to sustain its growth, and without such critical mass, users may leave the network, causing an eventual demise of the network.

Examples of Social Science Theories

In this section, we present brief overviews of a few illustrative theories from different social science disciplines. These theories explain different types of social behaviors, using a set of constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, assumptions, and underlying logic. Note that the following represents just a simplistic introduction to these theories; readers are advised to consult the original sources of these theories for more details and insights on each theory.

Agency Theory. Agency theory (also called principal-agent theory), a classic theory in the organizational economics literature, was originally proposed by Ross (1973) [4] to explain two-party relationships (such as those between an employer and its employees, between organizational executives and shareholders, and between buyers and sellers) whose goals are not congruent with each other. The goal of agency theory is to specify optimal contracts and the conditions under which such contracts may help minimize the effect of goal incongruence. The core assumptions of this theory are that human beings are self-interested individuals, boundedly rational, and risk-averse, and the theory can be applied at the individual or organizational level.

The two parties in this theory are the principal and the agent; the principal employs the agent to perform certain tasks on its behalf. While the principal’s goal is quick and effective completion of the assigned task, the agent’s goal may be working at its own pace, avoiding risks, and seeking self-interest (such as personal pay) over corporate interests. Hence, the goal incongruence. Compounding the nature of the problem may be information asymmetry problems caused by the principal’s inability to adequately observe the agent’s behavior or accurately evaluate the agent’s skill sets. Such asymmetry may lead to agency problems where the agent may not put forth the effort needed to get the task done (the moral hazard problem) or may misrepresent its expertise or skills to get the job but not perform as expected (the adverse selection problem). Typical contracts that are behavior-based, such as a monthly salary, cannot overcome these problems. Hence, agency theory recommends using outcome-based contracts, such as a commissions or a fee payable upon task completion, or mixed contracts that combine behavior-based and outcome-based incentives. An employee stock option plans are is an example of an outcome-based contract while employee pay is a behavior-based contract. Agency theory also recommends tools that principals may employ to improve the efficacy of behavior-based contracts, such as investing in monitoring mechanisms (such as hiring supervisors) to counter the information asymmetry caused by moral hazard, designing renewable contracts contingent on agent’s performance (performance assessment makes the contract partially outcome-based), or by improving the structure of the assigned task to make it more programmable and therefore more observable.

Theory of Planned Behavior. Postulated by Azjen (1991) [5] , the theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a generalized theory of human behavior in the social psychology literature that can be used to study a wide range of individual behaviors. It presumes that individual behavior represents conscious reasoned choice, and is shaped by cognitive thinking and social pressures. The theory postulates that behaviors are based on one’s intention regarding that behavior, which in turn is a function of the person’s attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm regarding that behavior, and perception of control over that behavior (see Figure 4.2). Attitude is defined as the individual’s overall positive or negative feelings about performing the behavior in question, which may be assessed as a summation of one’s beliefs regarding the different consequences of that behavior, weighted by the desirability of those consequences.

Subjective norm refers to one’s perception of whether people important to that person expect the person to perform the intended behavior, and represented as a weighted combination of the expected norms of different referent groups such as friends, colleagues, or supervisors at work. Behavioral control is one’s perception of internal or external controls constraining the behavior in question. Internal controls may include the person’s ability to perform the intended behavior (self-efficacy), while external control refers to the availability of external resources needed to perform that behavior (facilitating conditions). TPB also suggests that sometimes people may intend to perform a given behavior but lack the resources needed to do so, and therefore suggests that posits that behavioral control can have a direct effect on behavior, in addition to the indirect effect mediated by intention.

TPB is an extension of an earlier theory called the theory of reasoned action, which included attitude and subjective norm as key drivers of intention, but not behavioral control. The latter construct was added by Ajzen in TPB to account for circumstances when people may have incomplete control over their own behaviors (such as not having high-speed Internet access for web surfing).

Figure 4.2. Theory of planned behavior

Innovation diffusion theory. Innovation diffusion theory (IDT) is a seminal theory in the communications literature that explains how innovations are adopted within a population of potential adopters. The concept was first studied by French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, but the theory was developed by Everett Rogers in 1962 based on observations of 508 diffusion studies. The four key elements in this theory are: innovation, communication channels, time, and social system. Innovations may include new technologies, new practices, or new ideas, and adopters may be individuals or organizations. At the macro (population) level, IDT views innovation diffusion as a process of communication where people in a social system learn about a new innovation and its potential benefits through communication channels (such as mass media or prior adopters) and are persuaded to adopt it. Diffusion is a temporal process; the diffusion process starts off slow among a few early adopters, then picks up speed as the innovation is adopted by the mainstream population, and finally slows down as the adopter population reaches saturation. The cumulative adoption pattern therefore an S-shaped curve, as shown in Figure 4.3, and the adopter distribution represents a normal distribution. All adopters are not identical, and adopters can be classified into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards based on their time of their adoption. The rate of diffusion a lso depends on characteristics of the social system such as the presence of opinion leaders (experts whose opinions are valued by others) and change agents (people who influence others’ behaviors).

At the micro (adopter) level, Rogers (1995) [6] suggests that innovation adoption is a process consisting of five stages: (1) knowledge: when adopters first learn about an innovation from mass-media or interpersonal channels, (2) persuasion: when they are persuaded by prior adopters to try the innovation, (3) decision: their decision to accept or reject the innovation, (4) implementation: their initial utilization of the innovation, and (5) confirmation: their decision to continue using it to its fullest potential (see Figure 4.4). Five innovation characteristics are presumed to shape adopters’ innovation adoption decisions: (1) relative advantage: the expected benefits of an innovation relative to prior innovations, (2) compatibility: the extent to which the innovation fits with the adopter’s work habits, beliefs, and values, (3) complexity: the extent to which the innovation is difficult to learn and use, (4) trialability: the extent to which the innovation can be tested on a trial basis, and (5) observability: the extent to which the results of using the innovation can be clearly observed. The last two characteristics have since been dropped from many innovation studies. Complexity is negatively correlated to innovation adoption, while the other four factors are positively correlated. Innovation adoption also depends on personal factors such as the adopter’s risk- taking propensity, education level, cosmopolitanism, and communication influence. Early adopters are venturesome, well educated, and rely more on mass media for information about the innovation, while later adopters rely more on interpersonal sources (such as friends and family) as their primary source of information. IDT has been criticized for having a “pro-innovation bias,” that is for presuming that all innovations are beneficial and will be eventually diffused across the entire population, and because it does not allow for inefficient innovations such as fads or fashions to die off quickly without being adopted by the entire population or being replaced by better innovations.

Figure 4.3. S-shaped diffusion curve

Figure 4.4. Innovation adoption process.

Elaboration Likelihood Model . Developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) [7] , the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is a dual-process theory of attitude formation or change in the psychology literature. It explains how individuals can be influenced to change their attitude toward a certain object, events, or behavior and the relative efficacy of such change strategies. The ELM posits that one’s attitude may be shaped by two “routes” of influence, the central route and the peripheral route, which differ in the amount of thoughtful information processing or “elaboration” required of people (see Figure 4.5). The central route requires a person to think about issue-related arguments in an informational message and carefully scrutinize the merits and relevance of those arguments, before forming an informed judgment about the target object. In the peripheral route, subjects rely on external “cues” such as number of prior users, endorsements from experts, or likeability of the endorser, rather than on the quality of arguments, in framing their attitude towards the target object. The latter route is less cognitively demanding, and the routes of attitude change are typically operationalized in the ELM using the argument quality and peripheral cues constructs respectively.

Figure 4.5. Elaboration likelihood model

Whether people will be influenced by the central or peripheral routes depends upon their ability and motivation to elaborate the central merits of an argument. This ability and motivation to elaborate is called elaboration likelihood . People in a state of high elaboration likelihood (high ability and high motivation) are more likely to thoughtfully process the information presented and are therefore more influenced by argument quality, while those in the low elaboration likelihood state are more motivated by peripheral cues. Elaboration likelihood is a situational characteristic and not a personal trait. For instance, a doctor may employ the central route for diagnosing and treating a medical ailment (by virtue of his or her expertise of the subject), but may rely on peripheral cues from auto mechanics to understand the problems with his car. As such, the theory has widespread implications about how to enact attitude change toward new products or ideas and even social change.

General Deterrence Theory. Two utilitarian philosophers of the eighteenth century, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, formulated General Deterrence Theory (GDT) as both an explanation of crime and a method for reducing it. GDT examines why certain individuals engage in deviant, anti-social, or criminal behaviors. This theory holds that people are fundamentally rational (for both conforming and deviant behaviors), and that they freely choose deviant behaviors based on a rational cost-benefit calculation. Because people naturally choose utility-maximizing behaviors, deviant choices that engender personal gain or pleasure can be controlled by increasing the costs of such behaviors in the form of punishments (countermeasures) as well as increasing the probability of apprehension. Swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishments are the key constructs in GDT.

While classical positivist research in criminology seeks generalized causes of criminal behaviors, such as poverty, lack of education, psychological conditions, and recommends strategies to rehabilitate criminals, such as by providing them job training and medical treatment, GDT focuses on the criminal decision making process and situational factors that influence that process. Hence, a criminal’s personal situation (such as his personal values, his affluence, and his need for money) and the environmental context (such as how protected is the target, how efficient is the local police, how likely are criminals to be apprehended) play key roles in this decision making process. The focus of GDT is not how to rehabilitate criminals and avert future criminal behaviors, but how to make criminal activities less attractive and therefore prevent crimes. To that end, “target hardening” such as installing deadbolts and building self-defense skills, legal deterrents such as eliminating parole for certain crimes, “three strikes law” (mandatory incarceration for three offenses, even if the offenses are minor and not worth imprisonment), and the death penalty, increasing the chances of apprehension using means such as neighborhood watch programs, special task forces on drugs or gang -related crimes, and increased police patrols, and educational programs such as highly visible notices such as “Trespassers will be prosecuted” are effective in preventing crimes. This theory has interesting implications not only for traditional crimes, but also for contemporary white-collar crimes such as insider trading, software piracy, and illegal sharing of music.

[1] Bacharach, S. B. (1989). “Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation,” Academy of Management Review (14:4), 496-515.

[2] Steinfield, C.W. and Fulk, J. (1990). “The Theory Imperative,” in Organizations and Communications Technology , J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield (eds.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

[3] Markus, M. L. (1987). “Toward a ‘Critical Mass’ Theory of Interactive Media: Universal Access, Interdependence, and Diffusion,” Communication Research (14:5), 491-511.

[4] Ross, S. A. (1973). “The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem,” American Economic Review (63:2), 134-139.

[5] Ajzen, I. (1991). “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (50), 179-211.

[6] Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations . New York: The Free Press. Other editions 1983, 1996, 2005.

[7] Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change . New York: Springer-Verlag.

• Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Authored by : Anol Bhattacherjee. Provided by : University of South Florida. Located at : http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Theory-Based Nursing Research: A Qualitative Evaluation of the Experiences of Nurse Educators

Affiliations.

• 1 Faculty of Nursing, Obstetric and Gynecological Nursing Department, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye.
• 2 Faculty of Nursing, Obstetric and Gynecological Nursing Department, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye [email protected].
• 3 Faculty of Nursing, Child Health Nursing Department, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye.
• PMID: 32817277
• DOI: 10.1891/RTNP-D-19-00111

Background and purpose: Investigation of thoughts, experiences, and attitudes of nurse educators regarding theory-based research is important. Ultimately, nurse educators are the producers of nursing knowledge and providers of education. The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of nurse educators in selecting and using nursing theory to guide and inform the quality of their research.

Methods: This study has a descriptive phenomenological design, and the sample was comprised of nine nurse educators who had experience with theory-based research. The data were collected via in-depth personal interviews using a semi-structured survey form. The data were analyzed with content analysis as described by Graneheim and Lundman.

Results: Four themes emerged from the results of the study: "awareness of theory," "meaning of theory-based research," "harmony with the theory," and "changing towards scholarship," with 10 subthemes. It was determined that theory-based research helps nurse educators to improve themselves in academic and personal terms.

Implications for practice: Although the process of translating theory into research presents several challenges, all participants expressed that theory-based research contributed to their "theory advancing nursing science."

Keywords: Turkish nurse educators; nursing theory; qualitative study; theory-based research.

© Copyright 2020 Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

• Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate
• Faculty, Nursing*
• Interviews as Topic
• Middle Aged
• Nursing Research*
• Nursing Theory*
• Qualitative Research

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Using ideas from game theory to improve the reliability of language models

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Imagine you and a friend are playing a game where your goal is to communicate secret messages to each other using only cryptic sentences. Your friend's job is to guess the secret message behind your sentences. Sometimes, you give clues directly, and other times, your friend has to guess the message by asking yes-or-no questions about the clues you've given. The challenge is that both of you want to make sure you're understanding each other correctly and agreeing on the secret message.

MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) researchers have created a similar "game" to help improve how AI understands and generates text. It is known as a “consensus game” and it involves two parts of an AI system — one part tries to generate sentences (like giving clues), and the other part tries to understand and evaluate those sentences (like guessing the secret message).

The researchers discovered that by treating this interaction as a game, where both parts of the AI work together under specific rules to agree on the right message, they could significantly improve the AI's ability to give correct and coherent answers to questions. They tested this new game-like approach on a variety of tasks, such as reading comprehension, solving math problems, and carrying on conversations, and found that it helped the AI perform better across the board.

Traditionally, large language models answer one of two ways: generating answers directly from the model (generative querying) or using the model to score a set of predefined answers (discriminative querying), which can lead to differing and sometimes incompatible results. With the generative approach, "Who is the president of the United States?" might yield a straightforward answer like "Joe Biden." However, a discriminative query could incorrectly dispute this fact when evaluating the same answer, such as "Barack Obama."

So, how do we reconcile mutually incompatible scoring procedures to achieve coherent, efficient predictions? 

"Imagine a new way to help language models understand and generate text, like a game. We've developed a training-free, game-theoretic method that treats the whole process as a complex game of clues and signals, where a generator tries to send the right message to a discriminator using natural language. Instead of chess pieces, they're using words and sentences," says Athul Jacob, an MIT PhD student in electrical engineering and computer science and CSAIL affiliate. "Our way to navigate this game is finding the 'approximate equilibria,' leading to a new decoding algorithm called 'equilibrium ranking.' It's a pretty exciting demonstration of how bringing game-theoretic strategies into the mix can tackle some big challenges in making language models more reliable and consistent."

When tested across many tasks, like reading comprehension, commonsense reasoning, math problem-solving, and dialogue, the team's algorithm consistently improved how well these models performed. Using the ER algorithm with the LLaMA-7B model even outshone the results from much larger models. "Given that they are already competitive, that people have been working on it for a while, but the level of improvements we saw being able to outperform a model that's 10 times the size was a pleasant surprise," says Jacob. 

"Diplomacy," a strategic board game set in pre-World War I Europe, where players negotiate alliances, betray friends, and conquer territories without the use of dice — relying purely on skill, strategy, and interpersonal manipulation — recently had a second coming. In November 2022, computer scientists, including Jacob, developed “Cicero,” an AI agent that achieves human-level capabilities in the mixed-motive seven-player game, which requires the same aforementioned skills, but with natural language. The math behind this partially inspired the Consensus Game. 

While the history of AI agents long predates when OpenAI's software entered the chat in November 2022, it's well documented that they can still cosplay as your well-meaning, yet pathological friend. 

The consensus game system reaches equilibrium as an agreement, ensuring accuracy and fidelity to the model's original insights. To achieve this, the method iteratively adjusts the interactions between the generative and discriminative components until they reach a consensus on an answer that accurately reflects reality and aligns with their initial beliefs. This approach effectively bridges the gap between the two querying methods. 

In practice, implementing the consensus game approach to language model querying, especially for question-answering tasks, does involve significant computational challenges. For example, when using datasets like MMLU, which have thousands of questions and multiple-choice answers, the model must apply the mechanism to each query. Then, it must reach a consensus between the generative and discriminative components for every question and its possible answers. 

The system did struggle with a grade school right of passage: math word problems. It couldn't generate wrong answers, which is a critical component of understanding the process of coming up with the right one. 

“The last few years have seen really impressive progress in both strategic decision-making and language generation from AI systems, but we’re just starting to figure out how to put the two together. Equilibrium ranking is a first step in this direction, but I think there’s a lot we’ll be able to do to scale this up to more complex problems,” says Jacob.   

An avenue of future work involves enhancing the base model by integrating the outputs of the current method. This is particularly promising since it can yield more factual and consistent answers across various tasks, including factuality and open-ended generation. The potential for such a method to significantly improve the base model's performance is high, which could result in more reliable and factual outputs from ChatGPT and similar language models that people use daily. 

"Even though modern language models, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, have led to solving various tasks through chat interfaces, the statistical decoding process that generates a response from such models has remained unchanged for decades," says Google Research Scientist Ahmad Beirami, who was not involved in the work. "The proposal by the MIT researchers is an innovative game-theoretic framework for decoding from language models through solving the equilibrium of a consensus game. The significant performance gains reported in the research paper are promising, opening the door to a potential paradigm shift in language model decoding that may fuel a flurry of new applications."

Jacob wrote the paper with MIT-IBM Watson Lab researcher Yikang Shen and MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science assistant professors Gabriele Farina and Jacob Andreas, who is also a CSAIL member. They presented their work at the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) earlier this month, where it was highlighted as a "spotlight paper." The research also received a “best paper award” at the NeurIPS R0-FoMo Workshop in December 2023.

Share this news article on:

Press mentions, quanta magazine.

MIT researchers have developed a new procedure that uses game theory to improve the accuracy and consistency of large language models (LLMs), reports Steve Nadis for Quanta Magazine . “The new work, which uses games to improve AI, stands in contrast to past approaches, which measured an AI program’s success via its mastery of games,” explains Nadis. 

Previous item Next item

Related Links

• Article: "Game Theory Can Make AI More Correct and Efficient"
• Jacob Andreas
• Athul Paul Jacob
• Language & Intelligence @ MIT
• Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)
• Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
• MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab

Related Topics

• Computer science and technology
• Artificial intelligence
• Human-computer interaction
• Natural language processing
• Game theory
• Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (eecs)

Related Articles

Reasoning and reliability in AI

Explained: Generative AI

Synthetic imagery sets new bar in AI training efficiency

Simulating discrimination in virtual reality

More mit news.

An expansive approach to making new compounds

Read full story →

Q&A: A graduating student looks back on his MIT experience

Eleven from MIT awarded 2024 Fulbright fellowships

Robotic palm mimics human touch

Trying to make the grade

Janabel Xia: Algorithms, dance rhythms, and the drive to succeed

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

Is dark matter’s main rival theory dead? There’s bad news from the Cassini spacecraft and other recent tests

Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Astrophysics, University of St Andrews

Senior Research Fellow of Cosmology, University of Portsmouth

Disclosure statement

Indranil Banik receives funding from the Science and Technologies Facilities Council to test MOND using the dynamics of wide binary stars.

Harry Desmond does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Portsmouth and University of St Andrews provide funding as members of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

One of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics today is that the forces in galaxies do not seem to add up. Galaxies rotate much faster than predicted by applying Newton’s law of gravity to their visible matter, despite those laws working well everywhere in the Solar System.

To prevent galaxies from flying apart, some additional gravity is needed. This is why the idea of an invisible substance called dark matter was first proposed. But nobody has ever seen the stuff. And there are no particles in the hugely successful Standard Model of particle physics that could be the dark matter – it must be something quite exotic.

This has led to the rival idea that the galactic discrepancies are caused instead by a breakdown of Newton’s laws. The most successful such idea is known as Milgromian dynamics or Mond , proposed by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1982. But our recent research shows this theory is in trouble.

The main postulate of Mond is that gravity starts behaving differently to what Newton expected when it becomes very weak, as at the edges of galaxies. Mond is quite successful at predicting galaxy rotation without any dark matter, and it has a few other successes. But many of these can also be explained with dark matter, preserving Newton’s laws.

Read more: Dark matter: our review suggests it's time to ditch it in favour of a new theory of gravity

So how do we put Mond to a definitive test? We have been pursuing this for many years. The key is that Mond only changes the behaviour of gravity at low accelerations, not at a specific distance from an object. You’ll feel lower acceleration on the outskirts of any celestial object – a planet, star or galaxy – than when you are close to it. But it is the amount of acceleration, rather than the distance, that predicts where gravity should be stronger.

This means that, although Mond effects would typically kick in several thousand light years away from a galaxy, if we look at an individual star, the effects would become highly significant at a tenth of a light year. That is only a few thousand times larger than an astronomical unit (AU) – the distance between the Earth and the Sun. But weaker Mond effects should also be detectable at even smaller scales, such as in the outer Solar System.

This brings us to the Cassini mission , which orbited Saturn between 2004 and its final fiery crash into the planet in 2017. Saturn orbits the Sun at 10 AU. Due to a quirk of Mond, the gravity from the rest of our galaxy should cause Saturn’s orbit to deviate from the Newtonian expectation in a subtle way.

This can be tested by timing radio pulses between Earth and Cassini. Since Cassini was orbiting Saturn, this helped to measure the Earth-Saturn distance and allowed us to precisely track Saturn’s orbit. But Cassini did not find any anomaly of the kind expected in Mond. Newton still works well for Saturn.

One of us, Harry Desmond, recently published a study investigating the results in greater depth. Perhaps Mond would fit the Cassini data if we tweaked how we calculate galaxy masses from their brightness? That would affect how much of a boost to gravity Mond has to provide to fit models of galaxy rotation, and thus what we should expect for Saturn’s orbit.

Another uncertainty is the gravity from surrounding galaxies, which has a minor effect. But the study showed that, given how Mond would have to work to fit with models for galaxy rotation, it cannot also fit the Cassini radio tracking results – no matter how we tweak the calculations.

With the standard assumptions considered most likely by astronomers and allowing for a wide range of uncertainties, the chance of Mond matching the Cassini results is the same as a flipped coin landing heads up 59 times in a row. This is more than twice the “5 sigma” gold standard for a discovery in science, which corresponds to about 21 coin flips in a row.

More bad news for Mond

That’s not the only bad news for Mond. Another test is provided by wide binary stars – two stars that orbit a shared centre several thousand AU apart. Mond predicted that such stars should orbit around each other 20% faster than expected with Newton’s laws. But one of us, Indranil Banik, recently led a very detailed study that rules out this prediction. The chance of Mond being right given these results is the same as a fair coin landing heads up 190 times in a row.

Results from yet another team show that Mond also fails to explain small bodies in the distant outer Solar System. Comets coming in from out there have a much narrower distribution in energy than Mond predicts. These bodies also have orbits that are usually only slightly inclined to the plane that all the planets orbit close to. Mond would cause the inclinations to be much larger.

Newtonian gravity is strongly preferred over Mond on length scales below about a light year. But Mond also fails on scales larger than galaxies: it cannot explain the motions within galaxy clusters. Dark matter was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky in the 1930s to account for the random motions of galaxies within the Coma Cluster, which requires more gravity to hold it together than the visible mass can provide.

Mond cannot provide enough gravity either, at least in the central regions of galaxy clusters. But in their outskirts, Mond provides too much gravity. Assuming instead Newtonian gravity, with five times as much dark matter as normal matter, seems to provide a good fit to the data.

The standard dark matter model of cosmology isn’t perfect, however. There are things it struggles to explain , from the universe’s expansion rate to giant cosmic structures. So we may not yet have the perfect model. It seems dark matter is here to stay, but its nature may be different to what the Standard Model suggests. Or gravity may indeed be stronger than we think – but on very large scales only.

Ultimately though, Mond, as presently formulated, cannot be considered a viable alternative to dark matter any more. We may not like it, but the dark side still holds sway.

• Dark matter

Content Coordinator

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)