The Distinctions Between Theory, Theoretical Framework, and Conceptual Framework

Abstract

Health professions education (HPE) researchers are regularly asked to articulate their use of theory, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks in their research. However, all too often, these words are used interchangeably or without a clear understanding of the differences between these concepts. Further problematizing this situation is the fact that theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework are terms that are used in different ways in different research approaches. In this article, the authors set out to clarify the meaning of these terms and to describe how they are used in 2 approaches to research commonly used in HPE: the objectivist deductive approach (from theory to data) and the subjectivist inductive approach (from data to theory). In addition to this, given that within subjectivist inductive research theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework can be used in different ways, they describe 3 uses that HPE researchers frequently rely on: fully inductive theory development, fully theory-informed inductive, and theory-informing inductive data analysis.

Exploring perspectives on health professions education scholarship units from sub-Saharan Africa

“…To understand these similarities and differences with other HPESUs-despite the very different regional contexts surrounding them-required us to extend our theoretical net. To enhance our inquiry, we adopted a theory-informing inductive research approach [21] and sought out other theories that could help us explain this phenomenon. This search led us to the concept of isomorphism from the organizational theory that gave rise to the concepts of institutional logics.…”

Understanding the dimensions of a strong-professional identity: a study of faculty developers in medical education

“…Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to organize and systematize the data for further analysis and interpretation [16]. The analysis strategy was deductive thematic analysis as five researchers read each of the transcripts, discussed their coding, and came to consensus of the coding of all transcripts [17]. Emergent themes were added to the codification scheme and further integrated into the resulting model.…”

The utility of failure: a taxonomy for research and scholarship

“…Those metrics are aggregate measures of success for a heterogeneous community of scholars, and a project may not receive funding or be accepted for publication for a variety of reasons [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]-reasons that range from how well the project 'fits' in the mandate of the funding agency or journal, to issues of relevance, articulation, design, or planned interpretation. In 'pitching' or describing a project we may have failed to identify the gap in the literature [12], failed to clearly articulate our objectives, failed to describe a coherent theoretical or conceptual framework [13,14], failed to describe our approach to data collection or analysis effectively, or failed to articulate the impact of this piece of scholarship on the HPE community. These failures in the scholarly process are not the intended focus of this piece.…”

“…Our second type of failure is discovery-oriented failure. This kind of failure occurs at the periphery of what we know (or think we know) [40]-this kind of failure happens when we are developing or testing a theory [32], attempting to falsify a hypothesis, or critically examine the generalizability or transferability of an idea to a new context [13,41]. Our archetype of discovery-oriented failure is none other than Einstein for whom 'Failure is success in progress 3 '.…”

“…And sometimes things just don't go as planned. We are taught (and hopefully role model) that crafting an innovation or designing a study are dependent on engaging sound educational and research practices, carefully crafting theoretical and conceptual frameworks [13,14], and drawing on available work prior to launching a study or intervention. We (generally) have a sense of how the study is likely going to progress, what theories and discussions in the literature we are intending to contribute to, and perhaps are even purposefully testing a specific hypothesis.…”