Discussion post

E D I T O R I A L

What Is A Theoretical Framework? A Practical Answer

Norman G. Lederman1 • Judith S. Lederman1

Published online: 30 November 2015

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2015

Other than the poor or non-existent validity and/or reliability of data collection

measures, the lack of a theoretical framework is the most frequently cited reason for

our editorial decision not to publish a manuscript in the Journal of Science Teacher

Education. A poor or missing theoretical framework is similarly a critical problem

for manuscripts submitted to other journals for which Norman or Judith have either

served as Editor or been on the Editorial Board. Often the problem is that an author

fails to justify his/her research effort with a theoretical framework. However, there

is another level to the problem. Many individuals have a rather narrow conception

of what constitutes a theoretical framework or that it is somehow distinct from a

conceptual framework. The distinction on lack thereof is a story for another day.

The following story may remind you of an experience you or one of your classmates

have had.

Doctoral students live in fear of hearing these now famous words from their

thesis advisor: ‘‘This sounds like a promising study, but what is your theoretical

framework?’’ These words instantly send the harried doctoral student to the library

(giving away our ages) in search of a theory to support the proposed research and to

satisfy his/her advisor. The search is often unsuccessful because of the student’s

misconception of what constitutes a ‘‘theoretical framework.’’ The framework may

actually be a theory, but not necessarily. This is especially true for theory driven

research (typically quantitative) that is attempting to test the validity of existing

theory. However, this narrow definition of a theoretical framework is commonly not

aligned with qualitative research paradigms that are attempting to develop theory,

for example, grounded theory, or research falling into the categories of description

& Norman G. Lederman [email protected]

1 Chicago, IL, USA

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2015) 26:593–597

DOI 10.1007/s10972-015-9443-2

and interpretation research (Peshkin, 1993). Additionally, a large proportion of

doctoral theses do not fit the narrow definition described. The argument here is not

that various research paradigms have no overarching philosophies or theories about

knowing. Clearly quantitative research paradigms are couched in a realist

perspective and qualitative research paradigms are couched in an idealist

perspective (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). The discussion here is focused on theoretical

frameworks at a much more specific and localized perspective with respect to the

justification and conceptualization of a single research investigation. So, what is a

theoretical framework?

It is, perhaps, easier to understand the nature and function of a theoretical

framework if it is viewed as the answer to two basic questions:

1. What is the problem or question?

2. Why is your approach to solving the problem or answering the question

feasible?

Indeed, the answers to these questions are the substance and culmination of

Chapters I and II of the proposal and completed dissertation, or the initial sections

preceding the Methods section of a research article. The answers to these questions

can come from only one source, a thorough review of the literature (i.e., a review

that includes both the theoretical and empirical literature as well as apparent gaps in

the literature). Perhaps, a hypothetical situation can best illustrate the development

and role of the theoretical framework in the formalization of a dissertation topic or

research investigation. Let us continue with the doctoral student example, keeping

in mind that a parallel situation also presents itself to any researcher planning

research that he/she intends to publish.

As an interested reader of educational literature, a doctoral student becomes

intrigued by the importance of questioning in the secondary classroom. The student

immediately begins a manual and computer search of the literature on questioning

in the classroom. The student notices that the research findings on the effectiveness

of questioning strategies are rather equivocal. In particular, much of the research

focuses on the cognitive levels of the questions asked by the teacher and how these

questions influence student achievement. It appears that the research findings exhibit

no clear pattern. That is, in some studies, frequent questioning at higher cognitive

levels has led to more achievement than frequent questioning at the lower cognitive

levels. However, an equal number of investigations have shown no differences

between the achievement of students who are exposed to questions at distinctly

different cognitive levels, but rather the simple frequency of questions.

The doctoral student becomes intrigued by these equivocal findings and begins to

speculate about some possible explanations. In a blinding flash of insight, the

student remembers hearing somewhere that an eccentric Frenchman named Piaget

said something about students being categorized into levels of cognitive develop-

ment. Could it be that a student’s cognitive level has something to do with how

much and what he/she learns? The student heads back to the library and

594 N. G. Lederman, J. S. Lederman

123

methodically searches through the literature on cognitive development and its

relationship to achievement.

At this point, the doctoral student has become quite familiar with two distinct

lines of educational research. The research on the effectiveness of questioning has

established that there is a problem. That is, does the cognitive level of questioning

have any effect on student achievement? In effect, this answers the first question

identified previously with respect to identification of a theoretical framework. The

research on the cognitive development of students has provided an intriguing

perspective. That is, could it be possible that students of different cognitive levels

are affected differently by questions at different cognitive levels? If so, an answer to

the problem concerning the effectiveness questioning may be at hand. This latter

question, in effect, has addressed the second question previously posed about the

identification of a theoretical framework. At this point, the student has narrowed his/

her interests as a result of reviewing the literature. Note that the doctoral student is

now ready to write down a specific research question and that this is only possible

after having conducted a thorough review of the literature.

The student writes down the following research hypotheses:

1. Both high and low cognitive level pupils will benefit from both high and low

cognitive levels of questions as opposed to no questions at all.

2. Pupils categorized at high cognitive levels will benefit more from high

cognitive level questions than from low level questions.

3. Pupils categorized at lower cognitive levels will benefit more from low

cognitive level questions than from high level questions.

These research questions still need to be transformed into testable statistical

hypotheses, but they are ready to be presented to the dissertation advisor. The

advisor looks at the questions and says: ‘‘This looks like a promising study, but what

is your theoretical framework?’’ There is no need, however for a sprint to the

library. The doctoral student has a theoretical framework. The literature on

questioning has established that there is a problem and the literature on cognitive

development has provided the rationale for performing the specific investigation

that is being proposed. ALL IS WELL! If some of the initial research completed by Norman concerning what classroom

variables contributed to students’ understandings of nature of science (Lederman,

1986a, 1986b; Lederman & Druger, 1985) had to align with the overly restricted

definition of a theoretical framework, which necessitates the presence of theory, it

never would have been published. In these initial studies, various classroom

variables were identified that were related to students’ improved understandings of

nature of science. The studies were descriptive and correlational and were not

driven by any theory about how students learn nature of science. Indeed, the design

of the studies was derived from the fact that there were no existing theories, general

or specific, to explain how students might learn nature of science more effectively.

Similarly, the seminal study of effective teaching, the Beginning Teacher

Evaluation Study (Tikunoff, Berliner, & Rist, 1975), was an ethnographic study

What Is A Theoretical Framework? A Practical Answer 595

123

that was not guided by the findings of previous research on effective teaching.

Rather, their inductive study simply compared 40 teachers ‘‘known’’ to be effective

and ineffective of mathematics and reading to derive differences in classroom

practice. Their study had no theoretical framework if one were to use the restrictive

conception that a theory needed to provide a guiding framework for the

investigation. There are plenty of other examples that have guided lines of research

that could be provided, but there is no need to beat a dead horse by detailing more

examples. The simple, but important, point is that research following qualitative

research paradigms or traditions (Jacob, 1987; Smith, 1987) are particularly

vulnerable to how ‘theoretical framework’ is defined. Indeed, it could be argued that

the necessity of a theory is a remnant from the times in which qualitative research

was not as well accepted as it is today. In general, any research design that is

inductive in nature and attempts to develop theory would be at a loss. We certainly

would not want to eliminate multiple traditions of research from the Journal of

Science Teacher Education.

Harry Wolcott’s discussion about validity in qualitative research (Wolcott, 1990)

is quite explicit about the lack of theory or necessity of theory in driving qualitative

ethnography. Interestingly, he even rejects the idea of validity as being a necessary

criterion in qualitative research. Additionally, Bogdan and Biklen (1982) emphasize

the importance of qualitative researchers ‘‘bracketing’’ (i.e., masking or trying to

forget) their a priori theories so that it does not influence the collection of data or

any meanings assigned to data during an investigation. Similar discussions about

how qualitative research differs from quantitative research with respect to the

necessity of theory guiding the research have been advanced by many others (e.g.,

Becker, 1970; Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Erickson, 1986; Krathwohl, 2009; Rist,

1977; among others). Perhaps, Peshkin (1993, p. 23) put it best when he expressed

his concern that ‘‘Research that is not theory driven, hypothesis testing, or

generalization producing may be dismissed as deficient or worse.’’ Again, the key

point is that qualitative research is as valuable and can contribute as much to our

knowledge of teaching and learning as quantitative research.

There is little doubt that qualitative researchers often invoke theory when

analyzing the data they have collected or try to place their findings within the

context of the existing literature. And, as stated at the beginning of this editorial,

different research paradigms have large overarching theories about how one comes

to know about the world. However, this is not the same thing has using a theory as a

framework for the design of an investigation from the stating of research questions

to developing a design to answer the research questions.

It is quite possible that you may be thinking that this editorial about the meaning

of a theoretical framework is too theoretical. Trust us in believing that there is a

very practical reason for us addressing this issue. At the beginning of the editorial

we talked about the lack of a theoretical framework being the second most common

reason for manuscripts being rejected for publication in the Journal of Science

Teacher Education. Additionally, we mentioned that this is a common reason for

manuscripts being rejected by other prominent journals in science education, and

education in general. Consequently, it is of critical importance that we, as a

community, are clear about the meaning of a theoretical framework and its use. It is

596 N. G. Lederman, J. S. Lederman

123

especially important that our authors, reviewers, associate editors, and we as Editors

of the journal are clear on this matter. Let us not fail to mention that most of us are

advising Ph.D. students in the conceptualization of their dissertations. This issue is

not new. In 1992, the editorial board of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching

was considering the claim, by some, that qualitative research was not being

evaluated fairly for publication relative to quantitative research. In their analysis of

the relative success of publication for quantitative and qualitative research,

Wandersee and Demastes (1992, p. 1005) noted that reviewers often noted, ‘‘The

manuscript had a weak theoretical basis’’ when reviewing qualitative research.

Theoretical frameworks are critically important to all of our work, quantitative,

qualitative, or mixed methods. All research articles should have a valid theoretical

framework to justify the importance and significance of the work. However, we

should not live in fear, as the doctoral student, of not having a theoretical

framework, when we actually have such, because an Editor, reviewer, or Major

Professor is using any unduly restrictive and outdated meaning for what constitutes

a theoretical framework.

References

Becker, H. (1970). Sociological work: Methods and substance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and

methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research, 57, 1–50.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research. Logrove, IL: Waveland

Press.

Lederman, N. G. (1986a). Relating teaching behavior and classroom climate to changes in students’

conceptions of the nature of science. Science Education, 70(1), 3–19.

Lederman, N. G. (1986b). Students’ and teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: A reassessment.

School Science and Mathematics, 86, 91–99.

Lederman, N. G., & Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students’ conceptions of

the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 649–662.

Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 24–30.

Rist, R. (1977). On the relations among educational research paradigms: From disdain to détente.

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 8, 42–49.

Smith, M. L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2),

173–183.

Tikunoff, W. J., Berliner, D. C., & Rist, R. C. (1975). Special study A: An enthnographic study of forty

classrooms of the beginning teacher evaluation study known sample. Sacramento, CA: California

Commission for Teacher Preparation and Licensing.

Wandersee, J. H., & Demastes, S. (1992). An analysis of the relative success of qualitative and

quantitative manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1005–1010.

Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking, and rejecting, validity in qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & A.

Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education (pp. 121–152). New York: Teachers College Press.

What Is A Theoretical Framework? A Practical Answer 597

123