conceptual and empirical research example

Home » Education » Difference Between Conceptual and Empirical Research

Difference Between Conceptual and Empirical Research

The main difference between conceptual and empirical research is that conceptual research involves abstract ideas and concepts, whereas empirical research involves research based on observation, experiments and verifiable evidence.

Conceptual research and empirical research are two ways of doing scientific research. These are two opposing types of research frameworks since conceptual research doesn’t involve any experiments and empirical research does.

Key Areas Covered

1. What is Empirical Research     – Definition, Characteristics, Uses 2. What is Empirical Research     – Definition, Characteristics, Uses 3. What is the Difference Between Conceptual and Empirical Research     – Comparison of Key Differences

Conceptual Research, Empirical Research, Research

What is Conceptual Research?

Conceptual research is a type of research that is generally related to abstract ideas or concepts. It doesn’t particularly involve any practical experimentation. However, this type of research typically involves observing and analyzing information already present on a given topic. Philosophical research is a generally good example for conceptual research.

Conceptual research can be used to solve real-world problems. Conceptual frameworks, which are analytical tools researchers use in their studies, are based on conceptual research. Furthermore, these frameworks help to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas researchers need for research purposes.

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework

In simple words, a conceptual framework is the researcher’s synthesis of the literature (previous research studies) on how to explain a particular phenomenon. It explains the actions required in the course of the study based on the researcher’s observations on the subject of research as well as the knowledge gathered from previous studies.

What is Empirical Research?

Empirical research is basically a research that uses empirical evidence. Empirical evidence refers to evidence verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Thus, empirical research is research studies with conclusions based on empirical evidence. Moreover, empirical research studies are observable and measurable.

Empirical evidence can be gathered through qualitative research studies or quantitative research studies . Qualitative research methods gather non-numerical or non-statistical data. Thus, this type of studies helps to understand the underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations behind something as well as to uncover trends in thought and opinions. Quantitative research studies, on the other hand, gather statistical data. These have the ability to quantify behaviours, opinions, or other defined variables. Moreover, a researcher can even use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to find answers to his research questions .

Figure 2: Empirical Research Cycle

A.D. de Groot, a famous psychologist, came up with a cycle (figure 2) to explain the process of the empirical research process. Moreover, this cycle has five steps, each as important as the other. These steps include observation, induction, deduction, testing and evaluation.

Conceptual research is a type of research that is generally related to abstract ideas or concepts whereas empirical research is any research study where conclusions of the study are drawn from evidence verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Conceptual research involves abstract idea and concepts; however, it doesn’t involve any practical experiments. Empirical research, on the other hand, involves phenomena that are observable and measurable.

Type of Studies

Philosophical research studies are examples of conceptual research studies, whereas empirical research includes both quantitative and qualitative studies.

The main difference between conceptual and empirical research is that conceptual research involves abstract ideas and concepts whereas empirical research involves research based on observation, experiments and verifiable evidence.

1.“Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples.” QuestionPro, 14 Dec. 2018, Available here . 2. “Empirical Research.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Sept. 2019, Available here . 3.“Conceptual Research: Definition, Framework, Example and Advantages.” QuestionPro, 18 Sept. 2018, Available here. 4. Patrick. “Conceptual Framework: A Step-by-Step Guide on How to Make One.” SimplyEducate.Me, 4 Dec. 2018, Available here .

Image Courtesy:

1. “APM Conceptual Framework” By LarryDragich – Created for a Technical Management Counsel meeting Previously published: First published in APM Digest in March (CC BY-SA 3.0) via Commons Wikimedia 2. “Empirical Cycle” By Empirical_Cycle.png: TesseUndDaanderivative work: Beao (talk) – Empirical_Cycle.png (CC BY 3.0) via Commons Wikimedia

About the Author: Hasa

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

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Conceptual Research vs. Empirical Research

What's the difference.

Conceptual research and empirical research are two distinct approaches to conducting research. Conceptual research focuses on exploring and developing theories, concepts, and ideas. It involves analyzing existing literature, theories, and concepts to gain a deeper understanding of a particular topic. Conceptual research is often used in the early stages of research to generate hypotheses and develop a theoretical framework. On the other hand, empirical research involves collecting and analyzing data to test hypotheses and answer research questions. It relies on observation, measurement, and experimentation to gather evidence and draw conclusions. Empirical research is more focused on obtaining concrete and measurable results, often through surveys, experiments, or observations. Both approaches are valuable in research, with conceptual research providing a foundation for empirical research and empirical research validating or refuting conceptual theories.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Research is a fundamental aspect of any field of study, providing a systematic approach to acquiring knowledge and understanding. In the realm of research, two primary methodologies are commonly employed: conceptual research and empirical research. While both approaches aim to contribute to the body of knowledge, they differ significantly in their attributes, methodologies, and outcomes. This article aims to explore and compare the attributes of conceptual research and empirical research, shedding light on their unique characteristics and applications.

Conceptual Research

Conceptual research, also known as theoretical research, focuses on the exploration and development of theories, concepts, and ideas. It is primarily concerned with abstract and hypothetical constructs, aiming to enhance understanding and generate new insights. Conceptual research often involves a comprehensive review of existing literature, analyzing and synthesizing various theories and concepts to propose new frameworks or models.

One of the key attributes of conceptual research is its reliance on deductive reasoning. Researchers start with a set of existing theories or concepts and use logical reasoning to derive new hypotheses or frameworks. This deductive approach allows researchers to build upon existing knowledge and propose innovative ideas. Conceptual research is often exploratory in nature, seeking to expand the boundaries of knowledge and provide a foundation for further empirical investigations.

Conceptual research is particularly valuable in fields where empirical data may be limited or difficult to obtain. It allows researchers to explore complex phenomena, develop theoretical frameworks, and generate hypotheses that can later be tested through empirical research. By focusing on abstract concepts and theories, conceptual research provides a theoretical foundation for empirical investigations, guiding researchers in their quest for empirical evidence.

Furthermore, conceptual research plays a crucial role in the development of new disciplines or interdisciplinary fields. It helps establish a common language and theoretical framework, facilitating communication and collaboration among researchers from different backgrounds. By synthesizing existing knowledge and proposing new concepts, conceptual research lays the groundwork for empirical studies and contributes to the overall advancement of knowledge.

Empirical Research

Empirical research, in contrast to conceptual research, is concerned with the collection and analysis of observable data. It aims to test hypotheses, validate theories, and provide evidence-based conclusions. Empirical research relies on the systematic collection of data through various methods, such as surveys, experiments, observations, or interviews. The data collected is then analyzed using statistical or qualitative techniques to draw meaningful conclusions.

One of the primary attributes of empirical research is its inductive reasoning approach. Researchers start with specific observations or data and use them to develop general theories or conclusions. This inductive approach allows researchers to derive broader implications from specific instances, providing a basis for generalization. Empirical research is often hypothesis-driven, seeking to test and validate theories or hypotheses through the collection and analysis of data.

Empirical research is highly valued for its ability to provide concrete evidence and support or refute existing theories. It allows researchers to investigate real-world phenomena, understand cause-and-effect relationships, and make informed decisions based on empirical evidence. By relying on observable data, empirical research enhances the credibility and reliability of research findings, contributing to the overall body of knowledge in a field.

Moreover, empirical research is particularly useful in applied fields, where practical implications and real-world applications are of utmost importance. It allows researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, assess the impact of policies, or measure the outcomes of specific actions. Empirical research provides valuable insights that can inform decision-making processes, guide policy development, and drive evidence-based practices.

Comparing Conceptual Research and Empirical Research

While conceptual research and empirical research differ in their methodologies and approaches, they are both essential components of the research process. Conceptual research focuses on the development of theories and concepts, providing a theoretical foundation for empirical investigations. Empirical research, on the other hand, relies on the collection and analysis of observable data to test and validate theories.

Conceptual research is often exploratory and aims to expand the boundaries of knowledge. It is valuable in fields where empirical data may be limited or difficult to obtain. By synthesizing existing theories and proposing new frameworks, conceptual research provides a theoretical basis for empirical studies. It helps researchers develop hypotheses and guides their quest for empirical evidence.

Empirical research, on the other hand, is hypothesis-driven and seeks to provide concrete evidence and support or refute existing theories. It allows researchers to investigate real-world phenomena, understand cause-and-effect relationships, and make informed decisions based on empirical evidence. Empirical research is particularly useful in applied fields, where practical implications and real-world applications are of utmost importance.

Despite their differences, conceptual research and empirical research are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often complement each other in the research process. Conceptual research provides the theoretical foundation and guidance for empirical investigations, while empirical research validates and refines existing theories or concepts. The iterative nature of research often involves a continuous cycle of conceptual and empirical research, with each informing and influencing the other.

Both conceptual research and empirical research contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields. Conceptual research expands theoretical frameworks, proposes new concepts, and lays the groundwork for empirical investigations. Empirical research, on the other hand, provides concrete evidence, validates theories, and informs practical applications. Together, they form a symbiotic relationship, driving progress and innovation in various disciplines.

Conceptual research and empirical research are two distinct methodologies employed in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. While conceptual research focuses on the development of theories and concepts, empirical research relies on the collection and analysis of observable data. Both approaches have their unique attributes, methodologies, and applications.

Conceptual research plays a crucial role in expanding theoretical frameworks, proposing new concepts, and providing a foundation for empirical investigations. It is particularly valuable in fields where empirical data may be limited or difficult to obtain. On the other hand, empirical research provides concrete evidence, validates theories, and informs practical applications. It is highly valued in applied fields, where evidence-based decision-making is essential.

Despite their differences, conceptual research and empirical research are not mutually exclusive. They often work in tandem, with conceptual research guiding the development of hypotheses and theoretical frameworks, and empirical research validating and refining these theories through the collection and analysis of data. Together, they contribute to the overall advancement of knowledge and understanding in various disciplines.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Yearly paid plans are up to 65% off for the spring sale. Limited time only! 🌸

• Form Builder
• Survey Maker
• AI Form Generator
• AI Survey Tool
• AI Quiz Maker
• Store Builder
• WordPress Plugin

HubSpot CRM

Google Sheets

Google Analytics

Microsoft Excel

• Popular Forms
• Job Application Form Template
• Rental Application Form Template
• Hotel Accommodation Form Template
• Online Registration Form Template
• Employment Application Form Template
• Application Forms
• Booking Forms
• Consent Forms
• Contact Forms
• Donation Forms
• Customer Satisfaction Surveys
• Employee Satisfaction Surveys
• Evaluation Surveys
• Feedback Surveys
• Market Research Surveys
• Personality Quiz Template
• Geography Quiz Template
• Math Quiz Template
• Science Quiz Template
• Vocabulary Quiz Template

Try without registration Quick Start

Read engaging stories, how-to guides, learn about forms.app features.

Inspirational ready-to-use templates for getting started fast and powerful.

Spot-on guides on how to use forms.app and make the most out of it.

See the technical measures we take and learn how we keep your data safe and secure.

• Integrations
• Help Center
• Sign In Sign Up Free
• What is conceptual research: Definition & examples

Defne Çobanoğlu

How did Newton figure out the gravity after seeing an apple fall from a tree? What kind of research did Nicolaus Copernicus conduct to figure out that the planets revolve around the sun and not vice versa? It is certain that they did not conduct practical experiments to figure this stuff out.

The type of research these two scientists do is called conceptual research. They basically observed their surroundings to conceptualize and develop theories about gravitation, motion, and astronomy. That is what some scientists and philosophers do to wrap their heads around existing concepts and new ideas. Now, let us see what exactly conceptual research is and other details.

• What is conceptual research?

Conceptual research is a type of research that does not involve conducting any practical experiments . It is based on observing and analyzing already existing concepts and theories. The researcher can observe their surroundings and develop brand-new theories, or they can build on existing ones.

Conceptual research is widely used in the study of philosophy to develop new ideas. And this type of research is also used to answer business questions and organize ideas, or interpret existing theories differently.

Conceptual research definition

• Conceptual research frameworks

Even if the researcher is not conducting any experiments of their own, they should still work in a systematic manner, to be precise. And a conceptual research framework is built around existing literature and appropriate research studies that can explain the phenomenon. Here is a step-by-step guide to creating a conceptual research framework:

The steps for a conceptual research framework

1 - Define a topic for research:

The first step in creating your research framework is to choose the topic you will be working on. Most researchers define a topic in their area of expertise and go along with it.

2 - Collect relevant literature:

After deciding on the subject, the next and most important step is collecting relevant literature. As this type of research heavily relies on existing literature, it is important to find reliable sources. Successfully collecting relevant information is key to successfully completing this step. The reliable sources one can use are:

• scientific journals
• research papers (published by well-known scientists)
• Public libraries
• Online databases
• Relevant books

3 - Identify specific variables:

In this step, identify specific variables that may affect your research. These variables may give your study a new scope and a new area to cover during your research. For example, let us say you want to conduct research about the occurrence of depression in teenage boys aged 14 to 19. Here, the two variables are teenage boys and depression.

During your research, you figure that substance abuse among teenage boys has a big effect on their mental wellbeings. Therefore, you add substance abuse as a relevant variable and be mindful of that when you are continuing your research. 

4 - Create the framework:

The final step is creating the framework after going through all the relevant data available. The research question in hand becomes the research framework

• Conceptual research examples

When a researcher decides on the subject they want to explore, the next thing they should decide is what kind of methods they want to do. They can choose the experiments and surveys, but sometimes these methods are not possible for different reasons. And when they can not do practical experimenting, they can use existing literature and observation. Here are two examples where conceptual research can be used: 

• Example 1 of conceptual research:

A researcher wants to explore the key factors that influence consumer behavior in the online shopping environment. That is their research question. Once the researcher decides on the subject, they can begin by reviewing the existing literature on consumer behavior and examining different theories and models of consumer behavior. 

Then, they can identify common themes or factors that have emerged. By understanding this phenomenon, the researcher can develop a conceptual framework.

• Example 2 of conceptual research:

A group of researchers wants to see if there is any correlation between chemically dyeing your hair and the risk of cancer in women. They can start collecting data on women that had cancer and usage of hair dye. They can collect research papers on this particular subject. And they can create a conceptual framework with the information they collected and analyzed.

• Advantages and disadvantages of conceptual research

There are multiple research types for researchers to get to the goal they want, and they all offer different advantages. It is up to the researchers to decide on the most suitable one for their study and go along with that. The conceptual study also has its positive and negative aspects one should have in mind. Now, let us go through the list of conceptual research advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages vs. disadvantages of conceptual research

Advantages of conceptual research:

• Requires fewer sources: This type of research does not involve any type of experiment. Therefore it saves money, energy, and manpower. It only involves theorizing and searching through existing literature. 
• Generates new ideas:  Conceptual research can help generate new ideas and hypotheses. Researchers can use data collection to add on top of abstract ideas or concepts
• Helps to identify patterns: Conceptual research can help identify patterns in complex concepts and help develop a conceptual analysis. This can lead to a better understanding of how different factors are related to each other.

Disadvantages of conceptual research:

• Questionable reliability and validity: Conclusions drawn from literature reviews on conceptual research topics are less fact-based and may not essentially be considered dependable. Because they are not backed up by practical experimentation, they may have less credibility.
• May be prone to subjectivity: Because it relies on abstract concepts, conceptual research may be influenced by personal biases and perspectives. Researchers should be mindful of this effect and act on it accordingly.
• Can be time-consuming:  As conceptual research involves extensive research and analyses of relevant literature, it may take a longer time to finalize the study on hand. This can be challenging for researchers who are working within time constraints.
• Conceptual research vs. empirical research

Conceptual research is about creating an idea after looking at existing data or adding on a theory after going through available literature. And the empirical research includes something different than the prior one. Empirical research involves research based on observation, experiments, and verifiable evidence .

The main difference between the two is the fact that empirical research involves doing experiments to develop a conceptual framework. Empirical research studies are observable and measurable as they are verifiable by observations or experience. In order to see if a study is empirical, you can ask yourself this question: Can I create this study and test these results myself?

The difference between conceptual research and empirical research

• Wrapping it up

Once you encounter a problem you want to solve but you are unable to do experiments, you can go with conceptual research. Instead of conducting experiments, you should find appropriate existing literature and analyze them thoroughly. Just then, you can create a conceptual framework.

And you can always use the help of a good online tool for your needs when doing research. The best tool for all your needs, from forms to surveys to questionnaires, is forms.app. forms.app is an online survey maker that offers more than 1000 ready-to-use templates and can be the help you need!

Defne is a content writer at forms.app. She is also a translator specializing in literary translation. Defne loves reading, writing, and translating professionally and as a hobby. Her expertise lies in survey research, research methodologies, content writing, and translation.

• Form Features
• Data Collection

Table of Contents

Related posts.

Paperform vs. Jotform: which one is better?

8 awesome tips: How to get more form submissions

7 great form types you can use for your business

forms.app Team

• 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

Conceptual Research: Definition, Framework, Example and Advantages

Conceptual Research: Definition

Conceptual research is defined as a methodology wherein research is conducted by observing and analyzing already present information on a given topic. Conceptual research doesn’t involve conducting any practical experiments. It is related to abstract concepts or ideas. Philosophers have long used conceptual research to develop new theories or interpret existing theories in a different light.

For example, Copernicus used conceptual research to come up with the concepts of stellar constellations based on his observations of the universe. Down the line, Galileo simplified Copernicus’s research by making his own conceptual observations which gave rise to more experimental research and confirmed the predictions made at that time.

The most famous example of conceptual research is Sir Issac Newton. He observed his surroundings to conceptualize and develop theories about gravitation and motion.

Einstein is widely known and appreciated for his work on conceptual research. Although his theories were based on conceptual observations, Einstein also proposed experiments to come up with theories to test the conceptual research.

Nowadays, conceptual research is used to answer business questions and solve real-world problems. Researchers use analytical research tools called conceptual frameworks to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas required for research purposes.

Conceptual Research Framework

Conceptual research framework constitutes of a researcher’s combination of previous research and associated work and explains the occurring phenomenon. It systematically explains the actions needed in the course of the research study based on the knowledge obtained from other ongoing research and other researchers’ points of view on the subject matter.

Here is a stepwise guide on how to create the conceptual research framework:

01. Choose the topic for research

Before you start working on collecting any research material, you should have decided on your topic for research. It is important that the topic is selected beforehand and should be within your field of specialization.

02. Collect relevant literature

Once you have narrowed down a topic, it is time to collect relevant information about it. This is an important step, and much of your research is dependent on this particular step, as conceptual research is mostly based on information obtained from previous research. Here collecting relevant literature and information is the key to successfully completing research.

The material that you should preferably use is scientific journals , research papers published by well-known scientists , and similar material. There is a lot of information available on the internet and in public libraries as well. All the information that you find on the internet may not be relevant or true. So before you use the information, make sure you verify it.  

03. Identify specific variables

Identify the specific variables that are related to the research study you want to conduct. These variables can give your research a new scope and can also help you identify how these can be related to your research design . For example, consider hypothetically you want to conduct research about the occurrence of cancer in married women. Here the two variables that you will be concentrating on are married women and cancer.

While collecting relevant literature, you understand that the spread of cancer is more aggressive in married women who are beyond 40 years of age. Here there is a third variable which is age, and this is a relevant variable that can affect the end result of your research.  

04. Generate the framework

In this step, you start building the required framework using the mix of variables from the scientific articles and other relevant materials. The research problem statement in your research becomes the research framework. Your attempt to start answering the question becomes the basis of your research study. The study is carried out to reduce the knowledge gap and make available more relevant and correct information.

Example of Conceptual Research Framework

Thesis statement/ Purpose of research: Chronic exposure to sunlight can lead to precancerous (actinic keratosis), cancerous (basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma), and even skin lesions (caused by loss of skin’s immune function) in women over 40 years of age.

The study claims that constant exposure to sunlight can cause the precancerous condition and can eventually lead to cancer and other skin abnormalities. Those affected by these experience symptoms like fatigue, fine or coarse wrinkles, discoloration of the skin, freckles, and a burning sensation in the more exposed areas.

Note that in this study, there are two variables associated- cancer and women over 40 years in the African subcontinent. But one is a dependent variable (women over 40 years, in the African subcontinent), and the other is an independent variable (cancer). Cumulative exposure to the sun till the age of 18 years can lead to symptoms similar to skin cancer. If this is not taken care of, there are chances that cancer can spread entirely.

Assuming that the other factors are constant during the research period, it will be possible to correlate the two variables and thus confirm that, indeed, chronic exposure to sunlight causes cancer in women over the age of 40 in the African subcontinent. Further, correlational research can verify this association further.

Advantages of Conceptual Research

1. Conceptual research mainly focuses on the concept of the research or the theory that explains a phenomenon. What causes the phenomenon, what are its building blocks, and so on? It’s research based on pen and paper.

2. This type of research heavily relies on previously conducted studies; no form of experiment is conducted, which saves time, effort, and resources. More relevant information can be generated by conducting conceptual research.

3. Conceptual research is considered the most convenient form of research. In this type of research, if the conceptual framework is ready, only relevant information and literature need to be sorted.

QuestionPro for Conceptual Research

QuestionPro offers readily available conceptual frameworks. These frameworks can be used to research consumer trust, customer satisfaction (CSAT) , product evaluations, etc. You can select from a wide range of templates question types, and examples curated by expert researchers.

We also help you decide which conceptual framework might be best suited for your specific situation.

FREE TRIAL         LEARN MORE

MORE LIKE THIS

Top 17 UX Research Software for UX Design in 2024

Apr 5, 2024

Healthcare Staff Burnout: What it Is + How To Manage It

Apr 4, 2024

Top 15 Employee Retention Software in 2024

Top 10 Employee Development Software for Talent Growth

Apr 3, 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

Empirical Vs. Conceptual Research

According to ORI, research is defined as the process of discovering new knowledge. Using observations and scientific methods, researchers arrive at a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and make a conclusion based on the key findings. Scientific research can be divided into empirical and conceptual research. However, modern science combines techniques from both types of research.

To know the difference between empirical and conceptual research, click here .

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Top 4 Tools for Keyword Selection

Keywords play an important role in making research discoverable. It helps researchers discover articles relevant…

Top 4 Tools to Create Scientific Images and Figures

A good image or figure can go a long way in effectively communicating your results…

Tips to Effectively Present Your Work

Presenting your work is an important part of scientific communication and is very important for…

Tips to Tackle Procrastination

You can end up wasting a lot of time procrastinating. Procrastination leads you to a…

Rules of Capitalization

Using too much capitalization or using it incorrectly can undermine, clutter, and confuse your writing…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

Theoretical vs Conceptual Framework

What they are & how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | March 2023

If you’re new to academic research, sooner or later you’re bound to run into the terms theoretical framework and conceptual framework . These are closely related but distinctly different things (despite some people using them interchangeably) and it’s important to understand what each means. In this post, we’ll unpack both theoretical and conceptual frameworks in plain language along with practical examples , so that you can approach your research with confidence.

Overview: Theoretical vs Conceptual

What is a theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, what is a conceptual framework, example of a conceptual framework.

• Theoretical vs conceptual: which one should I use?

A theoretical framework (also sometimes referred to as a foundation of theory) is essentially a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions that together form a structured, comprehensive view of a specific phenomenon.

In other words, a theoretical framework is a collection of existing theories, models and frameworks that provides a foundation of core knowledge – a “lay of the land”, so to speak, from which you can build a research study. For this reason, it’s usually presented fairly early within the literature review section of a dissertation, thesis or research paper .

Let’s look at an example to make the theoretical framework a little more tangible.

If your research aims involve understanding what factors contributed toward people trusting investment brokers, you’d need to first lay down some theory so that it’s crystal clear what exactly you mean by this. For example, you would need to define what you mean by “trust”, as there are many potential definitions of this concept. The same would be true for any other constructs or variables of interest.

You’d also need to identify what existing theories have to say in relation to your research aim. In this case, you could discuss some of the key literature in relation to organisational trust. A quick search on Google Scholar using some well-considered keywords generally provides a good starting point.

Typically, you’ll present your theoretical framework in written form , although sometimes it will make sense to utilise some visuals to show how different theories relate to each other. Your theoretical framework may revolve around just one major theory , or it could comprise a collection of different interrelated theories and models. In some cases, there will be a lot to cover and in some cases, not. Regardless of size, the theoretical framework is a critical ingredient in any study.

Simply put, the theoretical framework is the core foundation of theory that you’ll build your research upon. As we’ve mentioned many times on the blog, good research is developed by standing on the shoulders of giants . It’s extremely unlikely that your research topic will be completely novel and that there’ll be absolutely no existing theory that relates to it. If that’s the case, the most likely explanation is that you just haven’t reviewed enough literature yet! So, make sure that you take the time to review and digest the seminal sources.

Need a helping hand?

A conceptual framework is typically a visual representation (although it can also be written out) of the expected relationships and connections between various concepts, constructs or variables. In other words, a conceptual framework visualises how the researcher views and organises the various concepts and variables within their study. This is typically based on aspects drawn from the theoretical framework, so there is a relationship between the two.

Quite commonly, conceptual frameworks are used to visualise the potential causal relationships and pathways that the researcher expects to find, based on their understanding of both the theoretical literature and the existing empirical research . Therefore, the conceptual framework is often used to develop research questions and hypotheses .

Let’s look at an example of a conceptual framework to make it a little more tangible. You’ll notice that in this specific conceptual framework, the hypotheses are integrated into the visual, helping to connect the rest of the document to the framework.

As you can see, conceptual frameworks often make use of different shapes , lines and arrows to visualise the connections and relationships between different components and/or variables. Ultimately, the conceptual framework provides an opportunity for you to make explicit your understanding of how everything is connected . So, be sure to make use of all the visual aids you can – clean design, well-considered colours and concise text are your friends.

Theoretical framework vs conceptual framework

As you can see, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are closely related concepts, but they differ in terms of focus and purpose. The theoretical framework is used to lay down a foundation of theory on which your study will be built, whereas the conceptual framework visualises what you anticipate the relationships between concepts, constructs and variables may be, based on your understanding of the existing literature and the specific context and focus of your research. In other words, they’re different tools for different jobs , but they’re neighbours in the toolbox.

Naturally, the theoretical framework and the conceptual framework are not mutually exclusive . In fact, it’s quite likely that you’ll include both in your dissertation or thesis, especially if your research aims involve investigating relationships between variables. Of course, every research project is different and universities differ in terms of their expectations for dissertations and theses, so it’s always a good idea to have a look at past projects to get a feel for what the norms and expectations are at your specific institution.

Want to learn more about research terminology, methods and techniques? Be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’re looking for hands-on help, have a look at our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process, step by step.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

17 Comments

Thank you for giving a valuable lesson

good thanks!

VERY INSIGHTFUL

thanks for given very interested understand about both theoritical and conceptual framework

I am researching teacher beliefs about inclusive education but not using a theoretical framework just conceptual frame using teacher beliefs, inclusive education and inclusive practices as my concepts

good, fantastic

great! thanks for the clarification. I am planning to use both for my implementation evaluation of EmONC service at primary health care facility level. its theoretical foundation rooted from the principles of implementation science.

This is a good one…now have a better understanding of Theoretical and Conceptual frameworks. Highly grateful

Very educating and fantastic,good to be part of you guys,I appreciate your enlightened concern.

Thanks for shedding light on these two t opics. Much clearer in my head now.

Simple and clear!

The differences between the two topics was well explained, thank you very much!

Thank you great insight

Superb. Thank you so much.

Hello Gradcoach! I’m excited with your fantastic educational videos which mainly focused on all over research process. I’m a student, I kindly ask and need your support. So, if it’s possible please send me the PDF format of all topic provided here, I put my email below, thank you!

I am really grateful I found this website. This is very helpful for an MPA student like myself.

I’m clear with these two terminologies now. Useful information. I appreciate it. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Howe Writing Center

Distinguishing between the conceptual versus the empirical.

Philosophical questions tend to be conceptual in nature. This means that they cannot be answered simply by giving facts or information. A concept is the object of a thought, not something that is present to the senses.

The word “empirical” means “gained through experience.” Scientific experiments and observation give rise to empirical data. Scientific theories that organize the data are conceptual. Historical records or results of sociological or psychological surveys are empirical. Making sense of those records or results requires the use of concepts.

Concepts are not mysterious, and although they are "abstract," we use them all the time to organize our thinking. We literally could not think or communicate without concepts. Some common examples of concepts are "justice," "beauty," and "truth," but also "seven," "blue," or "big."

Empirical questions can be answered by giving facts or information. Examples of empirical questions are: "What is the chemical composition of water?" or: "When did the French Revolution happen?" or: "Which educational system results in the highest literacy rate?”

When we ask a philosophical conceptual question, we are usually inquiring into the nature of something, or asking a question about how something is the way it is. Ancient philosophers such as Plato asked conceptual questions such as "What is justice?" as the basis of philosophy. The statements, "That action is wrong," or, "Knowledge is justified true belief," are conceptual claims.

In papers, you will often be asked to consider concepts, to analyze and unpack the way in which philosophers use them, and perhaps to compare them across texts. For example, you might be asked, “Do animals have rights?” This question asks you to consider what a right is, and whether it is the sort of thing an animal ought to or even could have. It does not ask whether or not there are laws on the books that actually give these rights. It also does not ask for your opinion on this question, but for a reasoned position that draws on philosophical concepts and texts for support.

• Conduct , Resources

Conceptual Research Vs Empirical Research?

Melissa martinez.

Need equipment for your lab?

Conceptual Research

Conceptual research is a technique wherein investigation is conducted by watching and analyzing already present data on a given point. Conceptual research does not include any viable tests. It is related to unique concepts or thoughts. Philosophers have long utilized conceptual research to create modern speculations or decipher existing hypotheses in a diverse light.

It doesn’t include viable experimentation, but the instep depends on analyzing accessible data on a given theme. Conceptual research has been broadly utilized within logic to create modern hypotheses, counter existing speculations, or distinctively decipher existing hypotheses. 

Today, conceptual research is utilized to answer business questions and fathom real-world problems. Researchers utilize explanatory apparatuses called conceptual systems to form conceptual refinements and organize thoughts required for investigation purposes.

Conceptual Research Framework

A conceptual research framework is built utilizing existing writing and studies from which inferences can be drawn. A conceptual research system constitutes a researcher’s combination of past research and related work and clarifies the phenomenon. The study is conducted to diminish the existing information gap on a specific theme and make important and dependable data available. 

The following steps can be taken to make a conceptual research framework:

Explain a topic for research

The primary step is to characterize the subject of your research. Most analysts will choose a topic relating to their field of expertise.

Collect and Organize relevant research

As conceptual research depends on pre-existing studies and writing, analysts must collect all important data relating to their point. It’s imperative to utilize dependable sources and information from scientific journals or investigate well-presumed papers. As conceptual research does not utilize experimentation and tests, the significance of analyzing dependable, fact-based information is reinforced.

Distinguish factors for the research

The other step is to choose important factors for their research. These factors will be the measuring sticks by which inductions will be drawn. They provide modern scope to inquire about and offer to help identify how distinctive factors may influence the subject of research.

Make the Framework 

The last step is to make the research framework by utilizing significant writing, factors, and other significant material. 

Advantages of Conceptual Research

It requires few resources compared to other types of market research where practical experimentation is required. This spares time and assets.

It is helpful as this form of investigation only requires the assessment of existing writing. 

Disadvantages of Conceptual Research

Speculations based on existing writing instead of experimentation and perception draw conclusions that are less fact-based and may not essentially be considered dependable.

Often, we see philosophical hypotheses being countered or changed since their conclusions or inferences are drawn from existing writings instead of practical experimentation. 

Empirical Research:

Empirical research is based on observed and established phenomena and determines information from real involvement instead of hypothesis or conviction. It derives knowledge from actual experiences. How do you know a study is empirical? Pay attention to the subheadings inside the article, book, or report and examine them to seek a depiction of the investigating “strategy.” Inquire yourself: Could I recreate this study and test these results?

Key characteristics to see for: 

• Specific research questions to be answered 
• Definition of the population, behavior, or wonders being studied 
• Description of the methods used to consider the population of the area of phenomena, including various aspects like choice criteria, controls, and testing instruments.

Empirical Research Framework:

Since empirical research is based on perception and capturing experiences, it is critical to arrange the steps to experiment and how to examine it. This will empower the analyst to resolve issues or obstacles amid the test.

• Define your purpose for this research:

This is often the step where the analyst must answer questions like what precisely I need to discover? What is the issue articulation? Are there any issues regarding the accessibility of knowledge, data, time, or assets? Will this research be more useful than what it’ll cost? Before going ahead, an analyst should characterize his reason for the investigation and plan to carry out assist tasks.

• Supporting theories and relevant literature:

The analyst should discover if some hypotheses can be connected to his research issue. He must figure out if any hypothesis can offer assistance in supporting his discoveries. All kinds of significant writing will offer assistance to the analyst to discover if others have researched this before. The analyst will also need to set up presumptions and also discover if there’s any history concerning his investigation issue

• Creation of Hypothesis and measurement:

Before starting the proper research related to his subject, he must give himself a working theory or figure out the probable result. The researcher has to set up factors, choose the environment for the research and find out how he can relate between the variables. The researcher will also need to characterize the units of estimations, tolerable degree for mistakes, and discover in the event that the estimation chosen will be approved by others.

• Methodology and data collection:

In this step, the analyst has to characterize a strategy for conducting his investigation. He must set up tests to gather the information that can empower him to propose the theory. The analyst will choose whether to require a test or non-test strategy for conducting the research. The research design will shift depending on the field in which the research is being conducted. Finally, the analyst will discover parameters that will influence the legitimacy of the research plan. The information collected will need to be done by choosing appropriate tests depending on the inquire-about address. To carry out the inquiry, he can utilize one of the numerous testing strategies. Once information collection is complete, the analyst will have experimental information which must be examined.

• Data Analysis and result:

Data analysis can be tried in two ways, qualitatively and quantitatively. The analyst will need to discover what subjective strategy or quantitative strategy will be required or will require a combination of both. Depending on the examination of his information, he will know if his speculation is backed or rejected. Analyzing this information is the foremost vital portion to bolster his speculation.

A report will need to be made with the discoveries of the research. The analyst can deliver the hypotheses and writing that support his investigation. He can make recommendations or suggestions to assist research on his subject

Advantages of empirical research

• Empirical research points to discover the meaning behind a specific phenomenon. In other words, it looks for answers to how and why something works the way it is. 
• By recognizing why something happens, it is conceivable to imitate or avoid comparative events. 
• The adaptability of the research permits the analysts to alter certain perspectives of the research and alter them to new objectives. 
• It is more dependable since it speaks to a real-life involvement and not fair theories. 
• Data collected through experimental research may be less biased since the analyst is there amid the collection handle. In contrast, it is incomprehensible to confirm the precision of the information in non-empirical research.

Disadvantages of empirical research

• It can be time-consuming depending on the research subject that you have chosen. 
• It isn’t a cost-effective way of information collection in most cases because of the viable costly strategies of information gathering. Additionally, it may require traveling between numerous locations. 
• Lack of proof and research subjects may not surrender the required result. A little test estimate avoids generalization since it may not be enough to speak to the target audience.
• It isn’t easy to induce data on touchy points. Additionally, analysts may require participants’ consent to utilize the data

Difference Between Conceptual and Empirical Research

Conceptual research and empirical research are two ways of doing logical research. These are two restricting investigation systems since conceptual research doesn’t include any tests, and empirical investigation does.

Conceptual research includes unique thoughts and ideas; as it may, it doesn’t include any experiments and tests. Empirical research, on the other hand, includes phenomena that are observable and can be measured.

• Type of Studies:

Philosophical research studies are cases of conceptual research, while empirical research incorporates both quantitative and subjective studies.

The major difference between conceptual and empirical investigation is that conceptual research involves unique thoughts and ideas, though experimental investigation includes investigation based on perception, tests, and unquestionable evidence.

References:

• Empirical Research: Advantages, Drawbacks, and Differences with Non-Empirical Research. In Voicedocs . Retrieved from https://voicedocs.com/en/blog/empirical-research-advantages-drawbacks-and-differences-non-empirical-research
• Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples. In QuestionPro . Retrieved from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/empirical-research/
• Conceptual vs. empirical research: which is better? In Enago Academy . Retrieved from https://www.enago.com/academy/conceptual-vs-empirical-research-which-is-better/

Related Articles

Best Microchannel Pipettes: A Comprehensive Guide

Introduction Pipetting, at first glance, would seem a fairly simple and easy task. Essentially described as glass or plastic tubes used to measure and transfer

Resource Identification Initiative

Resource Identification Initiative: A Key to Scientific Success and Analytics The key to success can be found in the essential principles of the Resource Identification

Best Microcentrifuges: A Comprehensive Guide

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY One of the most important pieces of equipment in the laboratory is the centrifuge, which facilitates the separation of samples of

Best Benchtop Centrifuges: A Comprehensive Guide

Top sales products.

Hess Tissue Forceps

Optogenetics Optical Fiber

Protective Virus Shield for Counter & Desk – Freestanding Clear Acrylic Shield 36″ x 24″

Digital Microscope

Stereotaxic Portable Digital System for Rat & Mouse

Castroviejo 1×2 teeth tissue forceps.

Our Location

Conduct science.

• Become a Partner
• Social Media
• Career /Academia
• Privacy Policy
• Shipping & Returns
• Request a quote

Customer service

• Account details
• Lost password

DISCLAIMER: ConductScience and affiliate products are NOT designed for human consumption, testing, or clinical utilization. They are designed for pre-clinical utilization only. Customers purchasing apparatus for the purposes of scientific research or veterinary care affirm adherence to applicable regulatory bodies for the country in which their research or care is conducted.

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
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Conceptual Research and its differences with Empirical Research

by Bastis Consultores | Sep 20, 2021 | Methodology | 0 comments

Conceptual research, as the name suggests, is research related to abstract concepts and ideas. It does not involve practical experimentation, but is based on the researcher analyzing the available information on a given topic. Conceptual research has been widely used in the study of philosophy to develop new theories, counter existing theories, or interpret existing theories in a different way.

Components of Conceptual Research

Conceptual research framework.

A conceptual research framework is constructed from existing literature and studies from which inferences can be drawn. The study is carried out to reduce existing knowledge gaps on a particular topic and to make relevant and reliable information available.

To create a conceptual research framework, the following steps can be followed:

Defining a research topic

The first step of the framework is to clearly define the topic of your research. Most researchers will choose a topic related to their field of expertise.

Collecting and organizing relevant research

Since conceptual research is based on pre-existing studies and literature, researchers should collect all pertinent information related to their topic.

It is important to use reliable sources and data from reputable scientific journals or research papers. As conceptual research does not employ the use of practical experimentation, the importance of analyzing reliable, fact-based studies is reinforced.

Identifying variables for research

The next step is to select the variables relevant to the research. These variables will be the scales with which the inferences will be made. They give a new scope to the research and also help to identify how the different variables may be affecting the subject of the research.

Creating the framework

The last step is to create the research framework using the relevant literature, variables and any other relevant material. The statement of the main question/problem of the research becomes your research framework.

Conceptual Research Example

An example of conceptual research is the philosophy of Thomas Malthus set forth in his book “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. In his book, Malthus theorized that due to disease, famine, war, and/or calamities, the human population would cease to expand.

His theory was based on observations about human population growth and the growth of food production. He claimed that the human population increased geometrically while food production only increased arithmetically. To reach this conclusion he used existing population and food statistics. Based on this information, he assumed that humans would end up being unable to produce enough food to support themselves.

For many reasons, Malthus’s theory was wrong. One of the most important is that technological advances were not taken into account, probably due to the time in which the research was carried out. Technological advances and global interconnection enabled a massive increase in food production and stimulated the flow of food from one country to another.

Although Multhus’s theory was based on the current statistics of his time, his observations turned out to be false.

Advantages of Conceptual Research

It requires few resources, compared to other forms of market research where practical experimentation is required. This saves time and resources.

It is a convenient form of research: As this form of research only requires the evaluation of the existing literature, it turns out to be a relatively convenient form of research.

Disadvantages of Conceptual Research

Questionable reliability and validity: Theories based on existing literature, rather than experimentation and observation, draw conclusions that are less based on facts and cannot necessarily be considered reliable.

It is subject to a greater number of errors or subjectivity: We often see that philosophical theories are refuted or revised because their conclusions are inferences drawn from existing texts and not from practical experimentation.

Conceptual Research vs Empirical Research

Scientific research is usually divided into two classes: conceptual research and empirical research. Before there were different ways of investigating and a researcher prided himself on being one or the other, praising his method and despising the alternative. Today the distinction is not so clear.

Conceptual research focuses on the concept or theory that explains or describes the phenomenon studied. What causes the disease? How can we describe the movement of the planets? What are the basic components of matter? The conceptual researcher sits at his desk with a pen in his hand and tries to solve these problems by thinking about them.

He doesn’t do experiments, but he can use the observations of others, since this is the mass of data he tries to make sense of. Until recently, conceptual research methodology was considered the most honorable form of research: it required using the brain, not the hands. Researchers who did experiments, like alchemists, were considered little better than blacksmiths: “disgusting empiricals.”

What is empirical research?

Despite their high status, conceptual researchers regularly produced theories that were wrong. Aristotle taught that large cannonballs fell to earth faster than small ones, and many generations of professors repeated his teachings until Galileo proved them wrong. Galileo was an empiricist of the best kind, who conducted original experiments not only to destroy old theories but to provide the basis for new theories.

The backlash against the ivory tower theorists culminated in those claiming to have no use for the theory, arguing that the empirical acquisition of knowledge was the only path to truth. A pure empiricist simply graphed the data and saw if he would get a straight-line relationship between the variables. If so, it had a good “empirical” relationship that allowed useful predictions to be made. The theory behind the correlation was irrelevant.

Conceptual Questions and Empirical Questions

Conceptual questions.

Philosophical questions tend to be conceptual in nature. This means that they cannot be answered simply by giving facts or information. A concept is the object of a thought, not something that is present to the senses.

Concepts are not a mystery, and although they are “abstract,” we use them all the time to organize our thinking. We literally couldn’t think or communicate without concepts. Some common examples of concepts are “justice,” “beauty,” and “truth,” but also “seven,” “blue,” or “big.”

When we ask a philosophical conceptual question, we usually inquire into the nature of something, or ask a question about how something is as it is. Ancient philosophers, such as Plato, posed conceptual questions such as “What is justice?” as the basis of philosophy. The statements “That action is wrong” or “Knowledge is a true justified belief” are conceptual statements.

In papers, you will often be asked to consider concepts, analyze and describe how philosophers use them, and perhaps compare them between texts. For example, you may be asked, “Do animals have rights?” This question asks you to consider what a right is and whether it is the kind of thing an animal should or even might have. He did not wonder whether or not there were any laws that actually granted those rights. Nor does it ask for your opinion on this question, but a reasoned position that is based on philosophical concepts and texts.

Empirical Questions

The word “empirical” means “obtained through experience.” Scientific experiments and observation give rise to empirical data. The scientific theories that organize the data are conceptual. Historical records or the results of sociological or psychological surveys are empirical. Making sense of those records or results requires the use of concepts.

Empirical questions can be answered by giving facts or information. Examples of empirical questions are: “What is the chemical composition of water?” or: “When did the French Revolution occur?” or: “Which education system gives rise to the highest literacy rate?”

The cycle of empirical research

The empirical research cycle is a 5-phase cycle that describes the systematic processes for conducting empirical research. It was developed by the Dutch psychologist A.D. de Groot in the 1940s and it aligns 5 important stages that can be considered deductive approaches to empirical research.

In the methodological cycle of empirical research, all processes are interconnected and neither of them is more important than the other. This cycle clearly outlines the different phases involved in the generation of research hypotheses and in the systematic testing of these hypotheses from empirical data.

Observation

It is the process of collecting empirical data for research. In this phase, the researcher collects relevant empirical data using qualitative or quantitative observation methods, and this serves to support the hypotheses of the research.

At this stage, the researcher makes use of inductive reasoning to reach a probable overall conclusion of the research based on his observation. The researcher generates a general hypothesis that tries to explain the empirical data and goes on to observe the empirical data according to this hypothesis.

It is the stage of deductive reasoning. In it, the researcher generates hypotheses by applying logic and rationality to his observation.

Here the researcher tests the hypotheses using qualitative or quantitative research methods. At the verification stage, the researcher combines the relevant instruments of systematic research with empirical methods to arrive at objective results that support or negate the research hypotheses.

Evaluation research is the final stage of an empirical research study. It presents the empirical data, the conclusions of the research and the arguments that support them, in addition to the problems that have been found during the research process.

This information is useful for future research.

Examples of empirical research

An empirical research study can be conducted to determine whether listening to upbeat music improves people’s mood. The researcher may have to conduct an experiment that involves exposing individuals to upbeat music to see if this improves their mood.

The results of such an experiment will provide empirical evidence that confirms or disproves the hypotheses.

An empirical research study may also be conducted to determine the effects of a new drug on specific groups of people. The researcher may expose research subjects to controlled amounts of the drug and observe the effects over a specific period of time to gather empirical data.

Another example of empirical research is the measurement of noise pollution levels in an urban area to determine the average levels of sound exposure experienced by its inhabitants. In this case, the researcher may have to administer questionnaires or conduct a survey to collect relevant data based on the experiences of the research subjects.

Empirical research can also be conducted to determine the relationship between seasonal migration and the body mass of flying birds. A researcher may need to observe the birds and carry out the observation and experimentation necessary to arrive at objective results that answer the research question.

Methods of data collection from empirical research

Empirical data can be collected using qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Quantitative data collection methods are used for numerical data collection, while qualitative data collection processes are used to collect empirical data that cannot be quantified, i.e. non-numerical data.

The following are common methods of data collection in empirical research

Survey/ Questionnaire

The survey is a data collection method typically employed by researchers to gather large data sets from a specific number of respondents in relation to a research topic. This method of data collection is often used for quantitative data collection, although it can also be used in quantitative research.

A survey contains a set of questions that can range from closed questions to open-ended questions, along with other types of questions that revolve around the research topic. A survey can be administered physically or with the use of online data collection platforms.

Empirical data can also be collected by conducting an experiment. An experiment is a controlled simulation in which one or more of the variables of the research are manipulated by a set of interconnected processes in order to confirm or refute the hypotheses of the research.

An experiment is a useful method for measuring causality, i.e., cause and effect between dependent and independent variables in a research environment. It is a comprehensive method of data collection in an empirical research study because it involves checking calculated assumptions to arrive at the most valid data and research results.

Case Studies

The case study method is another common method of data collection in an empirical research study. It consists of examining and analyzing relevant cases and real-life experiences on the topic or variables of the research to discover in-depth information that can serve as empirical data.

The observation method is a qualitative data collection method that requires the researcher to study the behaviors of research variables in their natural environments to gather relevant information that can serve as empirical data.

Main Differences Between Conceptual Research and Empirical Research

Conceptual research is a type of research that is usually related to abstract ideas or concepts, while empirical research is any research study in which the conclusions of the study are drawn from evidence verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic.

Conceptual research has to do with abstract ideas and concepts; however, it does not involve any practical experiments. Empirical research, on the other hand, involves phenomena that are observable and measurable.

Type of studies

Philosophical research studies are examples of conceptual research studies, while empirical research includes both quantitative and qualitative studies.

The main difference between conceptual and empirical research is that conceptual research involves abstract ideas and concepts, while empirical research involves research based on observation, experiments, and verifiable evidence.

The Scientific Method: A Bit of Both

Modern scientific method is actually a combination of empirical and conceptual research. From known experimental data, a scientist formulates a working hypothesis to explain some aspect of nature. Then, it conducts new experiments designed to test the predictions of the theory, to support or disprove it. Einstein is often cited as an example of a conceptual researcher, but he based his theories on experimental observations and proposed experiments, real and thought, that would test his theories.

On the other hand, Edison is often considered an empiricist, with the “Edisonian method” being a trial-and-error term. But Edison appreciated the work of theorists and hired some of the best. Random screening of a myriad of possibilities remains valuable: pharmaceutical companies looking for new drugs do so, sometimes with great success.

Our specialists wait for you to contact them through the quote form or direct chat. We also have confidential communication channels such as WhatsApp and Messenger. And if you want to be aware of our innovative services and the different advantages of hiring us, follow us on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter.

If this article was to your liking, do not forget to share it on your social networks.

Bibliographic References

“Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples” QuestionPro, 14 Dec. 2018.

“Conceptual Research: Definition, Framework, Example and Advantages” QuestionPro, 18 Sept. 2018.

Patrick, M. “Conceptual Framework: A Step-by-Step Guide on How to Make One.” SimplyEducate.Me, 4 Dec. 2018.

You might also be interested in: Research Design: Cross-Sectional Study vs Longitudinal Study

Conceptual Research and its differences with Empirical Research. Photo: Unsplash. Credits: Mimi Thian @mimithian

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please enter an answer in digits: 11 + 13 =

Categories:

The most seen.

Copy short link

Designing conceptual articles: four approaches

• Theory/Conceptual
• Open access
• Published: 09 March 2020
• Volume 10 , pages 18–26, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Elina Jaakkola   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4654-7573 1  

157k Accesses

466 Citations

43 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

As a powerful means of theory building, conceptual articles are increasingly called for in marketing academia. However, researchers struggle to design and write non-empirical articles because of the lack of commonly accepted templates to guide their development. The aim of this paper is to highlight methodological considerations for conceptual papers: it is argued that such papers must be grounded in a clear research design, and that the choice of theories and their role in the analysis must be explicated and justified. The paper discusses four potential templates for conceptual papers – Theory Synthesis, Theory Adaptation, Typology, and Model – and their respective aims, approach for using theories, and contribution potential. Supported by illustrative examples, these templates codify some of the tacit knowledge that underpins the design of non-empirical papers and will be of use to anyone undertaking, supervising, or reviewing conceptual research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Conceptual review papers: revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory

John Hulland

A Framework for Undertaking Conceptual and Empirical Research

Advancing marketing theory and practice: guidelines for crafting research propositions

Wolfgang Ulaga, Michael Kleinaltenkamp, … Andreas Eggert

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The major academic journals in the field of marketing acknowledge the need for good conceptual papers that can “bridge existing theories in interesting ways, link work across disciplines, provide multi-level insights, and broaden the scope of our thinking” (Gilson and Goldberg 2015 , p. 128). Indeed, many of the most impactful marketing papers of recent decades are conceptual as this type of research enables theory building unrestricted by the demands of empirical generalization (e.g., Vargo and Lusch 2004 ). Authors crafting conceptual papers can find valuable advice on problematizing (Alvesson and Sandberg 2011 ), theorizing and theory building (Corley and Gioia 2011 ; Cornelissen 2017 ; Shepherd and Suddaby 2017 ), and the types of conceptual contribution that warrant publication (Corley and Gioia 2011 ; MacInnis 2011 ). However, a lack of commonly accepted templates or “recipes” for building the paper means that writing a conceptual piece can be a struggle (Cornelissen 2017 ). As a result, reviewers often face conceptual papers that offer little more than a descriptive literature review or interesting but disjointed ideas.

In empirical papers, the recipe typically is the research design that provides the paper structure and logic, guiding the process of developing new knowledge and offering conventions for reporting the key elements of the research (Flick 2018 , p. 102). The research design explains how the ingredients of the study were selected, acquired, and analyzed to effectively address the research problem, and reviewers can evaluate the robustness of this process by reference to established conventions in the existing literature. As conceptual papers generally do not fit the mold of empirical research, authors and reviewers lack any such recipe book, making the critical issue of analytical rigor more challenging.

This paper addresses issues of methodology and research design for conceptual papers. The discussion is built on previous “how to” guides to conceptual research, and on examples from high quality journals to identify and illustrate different options for conceptual research design. This paper discusses four templates—Theory Synthesis, Theory Adaptation, Typology, and Model—and explicates their aims, their approach to theory use, and their contribution potential. The paper does not focus on theory building itself but supports it, as analytical rigor is a prerequisite for high quality theorizing. Nor is the focus on literature reviews or meta-analyses; while these are important non-empirical forms of research, there are well articulated existing guidelines for such articles (see for example Webster and Watson 2002 ; Palmatier et al. 2018 ).

The ultimate goal of this paper is to direct scholarly attention to the importance of a systematic approach to developing a conceptual paper. Experienced editors and reviewers have noted that researchers sometimes underestimate how difficult it is to write a rigorous conceptual paper and consider this an easy route to publishing—an essay devoid of deeper scholarship (Hirschheim 2008 ). In reality, developing a cogent argument and building a supporting theoretical explanation requires tacit knowledge and skills that doctoral programs seldom teach (Yadav 2010 ; King and Lepak 2011 ). As Fulmer puts it, “in a theoretical paper the author is faced with a mixed blessing: greater freedom and page length within which to develop theory but also more editorial rope with which to hang him/herself” ( 2012 , p. 330).

The paper is organized as follows. The next section outlines key methodological requirements for conceptual studies. Four common types of research design are then identified and discussed with supporting examples. The article ends with conclusions and recommendations for marketing scholars undertaking, supervising, or reviewing conceptual research.

Conceptual papers: some methodological requirements

The term “research design” refers to decisions about how to achieve research goals, linking theories, questions, and goals to appropriate resources and methods (Flick 2018 , p. 102). In short, the research design is a plan for collecting and analyzing evidence that helps to answer the question posed (Ragin 1994 , p. 191). Like any design, the research design should improve usability ; a good research design is the optimal tool for addressing the research problem, and it communicates the logic of the study in a transparent way. In principle, any piece of research should be designed to deliver trustworthy answers to the question posed in a credible and justified manner.

An empirical research design typically involves decisions about the underlying theoretical framing of the study as well as issues of data collection and analysis (e.g. Miller and Salkind 2002 ). Imagine, for example, an empirical paper where the authors did not argue for their sampling criteria or choice of informants, or failed to define the measures used or to show how the results were derived from the data. It can be argued that conceptual papers entail similar considerations (Table 1 ), as the omission of equivalent elements would create similar confusion. In other words, a well-designed conceptual paper must explicitly justify and explicate decisions about key elements of the study. The following sections elaborate more specifically on designing and communicating these “methodological” aspects of conceptual papers.

Explicating and justifying the choice of theories and concepts

Empirical and conceptual papers ultimately share a common goal: to create new knowledge by building on carefully selected sources of information combined according to a set of norms. In the case of conceptual papers, arguments are not derived from data in the traditional sense but involve the assimilation and combination of evidence in the form of previously developed concepts and theories (Hirschheim 2008 ). In that sense, conceptual papers are not without empirical insights but rather build on theories and concepts that are developed and tested through empirical research.

In an empirical study, the researcher determines what data are needed to address the research questions and specifies sampling criteria and research instruments accordingly. In similar fashion, a conceptual paper should explain how and why the theories and concepts on which it is grounded were selected. In simple terms, there are two possible points of departure. The first option is to start from a focal phenomenon that is observable but not adequately addressed in the existing research. The authors may inductively identify differing conceptualizations of that phenomenon, and then argue that the aspect of interest is best addressed in terms of particular concepts or theories. That is, the choice of concepts is based on their fit to the focal phenomenon and their complementary value in conceptualizing it. One key issue here is how the researcher conceptualizes the empirical phenomenon; in selecting particular concepts and theories, the researcher is de facto making an argument about the conceptual ingredients of the empirical phenomenon in question.

A second and perhaps more common approach is to start from a focal theory by arguing that a particular concept, theory, or research domain is internally incoherent or incomplete in some important respect and then introducing other theories to bridge the observed gaps. In this case, the choice of theories or concepts is based on their ability to address the observed shortcoming in the existing literature, i.e. their supplementary value. This simplified account raises a critical underlying question: what is the value that each selected concept, literature stream, or theory brings to the study, and why are they selected in preference to something else?

Explicating the role of different theories and concepts in the analysis

Conceptual papers typically draw on multiple concepts, literature streams, and theories that play differing roles. It is difficult to imagine a (published) empirical paper where the reader could not distinguish empirical data from the literature review. In a conceptual paper, however, it is sometimes difficult to tell which theories provide the “data” and which are framing the analysis. In this regard, Lukka and Vinnari ( 2014 ) drew a useful distinction between domain theory and method theory. A domain theory is “a particular set of knowledge on a substantive topic area situated in a field or domain” (ibid, p. 1309)—that is, an area of study characterized by a particular set of constructs, theories, and assumptions (MacInnis 2011 ). A method theory, on the other hand, is “a meta-level conceptual system for studying the substantive issue(s) of the domain theory at hand” (Lukka and Vinnari 2014 , p. 1309). For example, Brodie et al. ( 2019 ) sought to advance engagement research (domain theory) by drawing new perspectives from service-dominant logic (method theory). The distinction is relative rather than absolute; whether a particular theory is domain or method theory depends on its role in the study in question (Lukka and Vinnari 2014 ). Indeed, a single study can accommodate multiple domain and method theories.

In a conceptual paper, one crucial function of the research design is to explicate the role of each element in the paper; failure to explain this is likely to render the logic of “generating findings” practically invisible to the reader. Defining the roles of different theories also helps to indicate the paper’s positioning, and how its contribution should be evaluated. Typically, the role of the method theory is to provide some new insight into the domain theory—for example, to expand, organize, or offer a new or alternative explanation of concepts and relationships. This means that contribution usually centers on the domain theory, not the method theory (Lukka and Vinnari 2014 ). For example, marketing scholars often use established theories such as resource-based theory, institutional theory, or practice theory as method theories, but any suitable framework (even from other disciplines) can play this role. Footnote 1

Making the chain of evidence visible and easy to grasp

Conceptual papers typically focus on proposing new relationships among constructs; the purpose is thus to develop logical and complete arguments about these associations rather than testing them empirically (Gilson and Goldberg 2015 ). The issue of how to develop logical arguments is hence pivotal. As well as arguing that concepts are linked, authors must provide a theoretical explanation for that link. As that explanation demonstrates the logic of connections between concepts, it is critical for theory building (King and Lepak 2011 ).

In attempting to analyze what constitutes a good argument, Hirschheim ( 2008 ) adopted a framework first advanced by the British philosopher Toulmin ( 1958 ), according to which an argument has three necessary components: claims, grounds, and warrants. Claims refer to the explicit statement or thesis that the reader is being asked to accept as true—the outcome of the research. Grounds are the evidence and reasoning used to support the claim and to persuade the reader. In a conceptual paper, this evidence is drawn from previous studies rather than from primary data. Finally, warrants are the underlying assumptions or presuppositions that link grounds to claims. Warrants are often beliefs implicitly accepted within the given research domain—for example the assumption that organizations strive to satisfy their customers. In a robust piece of research, claims should be substantiated by sufficient grounds, and should be of sufficient significance to make a worthwhile contribution to knowledge (Hirschheim 2008 ).

In practice, the chain of evidence in a conceptual paper is made visible to the reader by explicating the key steps in the argument. How is the studied phenomenon conceptualized? What are the study’s implicit assumptions, stemming from its theoretical underpinnings? Are the premises and axioms used to ground the arguments sufficiently explicit to enable another researcher to arrive at similar analytical conclusions? Conceptual clarity, parsimony, simplicity, and logical coherence are important qualities of any academic study but are arguably all the more critical when developing arguments without empirical data.

A paper’s structure is a strong determinant of how easy it is to follow the chain of argumentation. While there is no single best way to structure a conceptual paper, what successful papers have in common is a careful matching of form and structure to theoretical purpose of the paper (Fulmer 2012 ). The structure should therefore reflect both the aims of the research and the role of the various lenses deployed to achieve those aims—in other words, the structure highlights what the authors seek to explain. A clear structure also contributes to conceptual clarity by making the hierarchy of concepts and their elements intuitively available to the reader, eliminating any noise that might distort the underlying message. As Hirschheim ( 2008 ) noted, a clear structure ensures a place for everything—omitting nothing of importance—and puts everything in its place, avoiding redundancies.

Common types of research design in conceptual papers

In marked contrast to empirical research, there is no widely shared understanding of basic types of research design in respect to conceptual papers, with the exception of literature reviews and meta-analyses. To address this issue, the present study considers four such types: Theory Synthesis, Theory Adaptation, Typology , and Model (see Table 2 ). These types serve to clarify differences of methodological approach—that is, how the argument is structured and developed—rather than the types of conceptual contributions that are the main consideration of MacInnis ( 2011 ). The four types discussed here derive from an analysis of goal setting, structuring, and logic of argumentation in multiple articles published in high quality journals. It should be said that the list is not exhaustive, and other researchers would no doubt have formulated differing perspectives. Nevertheless, the presented scheme can inspire researchers to explore and explicate one’s approach to conceptual research, and perhaps to formulate an alternative approach. It should also be noted that the goals of a conceptual article can be as varied as in any other form of academic research. Table 2 identifies some possible or likely goals for each suggested type; these are not mutually exclusive and are often combined.

Theory synthesis

A theory synthesis paper seeks to achieve conceptual integration across multiple theories or literature streams. Such papers offer a new or enhanced view of a concept or phenomenon by linking previously unconnected or incompatible pieces in a novel way. Papers of this type contribute by summarizing and integrating extant knowledge of a concept or phenomenon. According to MacInnis ( 2011 ), summarizing helps researchers see the forest for the trees by encapsulating, digesting, and reducing what is known to a manageable whole. Integration enables researchers to see a concept or phenomenon in a new way by transforming previous findings and theory into a novel higher-order perspective that links phenomena previously considered distinct (MacInnis 2011 ). For example, a synthesis paper might chart a new or unstructured phenomenon that has previously been addressed in piecemeal fashion across diverse domains or disciplines. Such papers may also explore the conceptual underpinnings of an emerging theory or explain conflicting research findings by providing a more parsimonious explanation that pulls disparate elements into a more coherent whole.

This kind of systematization is especially helpful when research on a given topic is fragmented across different literatures, helping to identify and underscore commonalities that build coherence (Cropanzano 2009 ). For example, in their review of conceptualizations of customer experience across multiple literature fields, Becker and Jaakkola’s ( 2020 ) analysis of the compatibility of various elements and assumptions provided a new integrative view that could be generalized across settings and contexts. In more mature fields, synthesis can help to identify gaps in the extant research, which is often the goal of systematic literature reviews. However, gap spotting is seldom a sufficient source of contribution as the main aim of a conceptual paper should be to enhance existing theoretical understanding on the studied phenomenon or concept. The synthesis paper represents a form of theorizing that emphasizes narrative reasoning that seeks to unveil “big picture” patterns and connections rather than specific causal mechanisms (Delbridge and Fiss 2013 ).

Although there is sometimes a fine line between theory synthesis and literature review, there remains a clear distinction between the two. While a well-crafted literature review takes stock of the field and can provide valuable insights into its development, scope, or future prospects, it remains within the existing conceptual or theoretical boundaries, describing extant knowledge rather than looking beyond it. In the case of a conceptual paper, the literature review is a necessary tool but not the ultimate objective. Moreover, in a theory synthesis paper, the role of the literature review is to unravel the components of a concept or phenomenon and it must sometimes reduce or exclude incommensurable elements. A lack of elegance occurs when authors attempt to hammer together separate research ideas in a series of “minireviews” instead of attending to a single conceptual theme (Cropanzano 2009 ). For example, a literature review that seeks to integrate multiple research perspectives may instead merely summarize in separate chapters what each has to say about the concept. Typically, different research perspectives employ differing terms and structure, or categorize conceptual elements in distinct ways. Integration and synthesis requires that the researcher explicates and unravels the conceptual underpinnings and building blocks that different perspectives use to conceptualize a phenomenon, and the looks for common ground on which to build a new and enhanced conceptualization.

A theory synthesis paper may seek to increase understanding of a relatively narrow concept or empirical phenomenon. For example, Lemon and Verhoef ( 2016 ) summarized the conceptual background and extant conceptualizations of customer journeys to produce a new integrative view. They framed the journey phenomenon in terms of the consumer purchasing process and organized the extant research within this big picture. Similarly, arguing that the knowledge base of relationship marketing and business networks perspectives was unduly fragmented, Möller ( 2013 ) deployed a metatheoretical lens to construct an articulated theory map that accommodated various domain theories, leading to the development of two novel middle-range theories.

Ultimately, a theory synthesis paper can integrate an extensive set of theories and phenomena under a novel theoretical umbrella. One good example is Vargo and Lusch’s ( 2004 ) seminal article, which pulled together key ingredients from diverse fields such as market orientation, relationship marketing, network management, and value management into a novel integrative narrative to formulate the more parsimonious framework of service-dominant logic. In so doing, they drew on resource based theory, structuration theory, and institutional theory as method theories to organize and synthesize concepts and themes from middle-range literature fields (e.g., Vargo and Lusch 2004 , 2016 ). While extant research provided the basis for a novel framework, existing concepts were decomposed into such fine-grained ingredients that the resulting integration was a new theoretical view in its own right rather than a summary of existing concepts.

Theory adaptation

Papers that focus on theory adaptation seek to amend an existing theory by using other theories. While empirical research may gradually extend some element of theory within a given context, theory-based adaptation attempts a more immediate shift of perspective. Theory adaptation papers develop contribution by revising extant knowledge—that is, by introducing alternative frames of reference to propose a novel perspective on an extant conceptualization (MacInnis 2011 ). The point of departure for such papers, then, is the problematization of a particular theory or concept. For example, the authors might argue that certain empirical developments or insights from other streams of literature render an existing conceptualization insufficient or conflicted, and that some reconfiguration or shift of perspective or scope is needed to better align the concept or theory to its purpose or to reconcile certain inconsistencies. Typically, the researcher draws from another theory that is equipped to guide this shift. The contribution of this type of a paper is often positioned to the domain where the focal concept is situated.

The starting point for the theory adaptation paper is the theory or concept of interest (domain theory). Other theories are used as tools, or method theories (Lukka and Vinnari 2014 ) to provide an alternative frame of reference to adjust or expand its conceptual scope. One “method” of adaptation is to switch the level of analysis; for example, Alexander et al. ( 2018 ) provided new insights into the influence of institutions on customer engagement by shifting from a micro level analysis of customer relationships—the prevailing view in the field—to meso and macro level views, adapting Chandler and Vargo’s ( 2011 ) process of oscillating foci. Another option is to use an established theory to explore new aspects of the domain theory (Yadav 2010 ). As one example of this type of design, Brodie et al. ( 2019 ) argued for the practical and theoretical importance of expanding the scope of engagement research in two ways: from a focus on consumers to a broad range of actors, and from dyadic firm-customer relationships to networks. As well as justifying why a particular extension or change of focus is needed, a theory adaptation paper must also show that the selected method theory is the best available option. For example, Brodie et al. ( 2019 ) explained that they employed service-dominant logic to broaden the conceptual scope of engagement research because it offered a lens for understanding actor-to-actor interactions in networks. Similarly, Hillebrand et al. ( 2015 ) used multiplicity theory to revise existing perspectives on stakeholder marketing by viewing stakeholder networks as continuous rather than discrete. They argued that this provides a more accurate understanding of markets characterized by complex value exchange and dispersed control.

A typology paper classifies conceptual variants as distinct types. The aim is to develop a categorization that “explains the fuzzy nature of many subjects by logically and causally combining different constructs into a coherent and explanatory set of types” (Cornelissen 2017 ). A typology paper provides a more precise and nuanced understanding of a phenomenon or concept, pinpointing and justifying key dimensions that distinguish the variants.

Typology papers contribute through differentiation— distinguishing, dimensionalizing, or categorizing extant knowledge of the phenomenon, construct, or theory in question (MacInnis 2011 ). Typologies reduce complexity (Fiss 2011 ). They demonstrate how variants of an entity differ, and hence organize complex networks of concepts and relationships, and may help by recognizing their differing antecedents, manifestations, or effects (MacInnis 2011 ). Typologies also offer a multidimensional view of the target phenomenon by categorizing theoretical features or dimensions as distinct profiles that offer coordinates for empirical research (Cornelissen 2017 ). For example, the classic typologies elaborated by Mills and Margulies ( 1980 ) and Lovelock ( 1983 ) assigned services to categories reflecting different aspects of the relationship between customers and the service organization, facilitating prediction of organizational behavior and marketing action. These theory-based typologies have informed numerous empirical applications.

The starting point for a typology paper is typically recognition of an important but fragmented research domain characterized by differing manifestations of a concept or inconsistent findings regarding drivers or outcomes. The researcher accumulates knowledge of the focal topic and then organizes it to capture the variability of particular characteristics of the concept or phenomenon. For example, after exploring different approaches to service innovation, Helkkula et al. ( 2018 ) proposed a typology of four archetypes. They suggested that variance within the extant research could be explained by differences of theoretical perspective and argued that each type had distinct implications for value creation.

The dimensions of a typology can also be differentiated by applying another theory (i.e. methods theory) that provides a logical explanation of why differences exist and why they are relevant. For example, to examine the boundaries of resource integration, Dong and Sivakumar ( 2017 ) developed a typology of customer participation, using dimensions drawn from resource-based theory, to address the fundamental resource deployment questions of whether there is a choice in terms of who performs a task and what task is performed (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ).

Snow and Ketchen Jr. ( 2014 ) argued that well-developed typologies are more than just classification systems; rather, a typology articulates relationships among constructs and facilitates testable predictions (cf. Doty and Glick 1994 ). In this way, a typology can propose multiple causal relationships in a given setting (Fiss 2011 ). While a typology paper enhances understanding of a phenomenon by delineating its key variants, it can be seen to differ from a synthesis or adaptation paper by virtue of its explanatory character. This is the typology’s raison d’etre; types always explain something, and the dimensions that distinguish types account for the different drivers, outcomes, or contingencies of particular variants of the phenomenon. By accommodating asymmetric causal relations, typologies facilitate the development of configurational arguments beyond simple correlations (Fiss 2011 ).

The model paper seeks to build a theoretical framework that predicts relationships between concepts. A conceptual model describes an entity and identifies issues that should be considered in its study: it can describe an event, an object, or a process, and explain how it works by disclosing antecedents, outcomes, and contingencies related to the focal construct (Meredith 1993 ; MacInnis 2011 ). This typically involves a form of theorizing that seeks to create a nomological network around the focal concept, employing a formal analytical approach to examine and detail the causal linkages and mechanisms at play (Delbridge and Fiss 2013 ). A model paper identifies previously unexplored connections between constructs, introduces new constructs, or explains why elements of a process lead to a particular outcome (Cornelissen 2017 ; Fulmer 2012 ).

The model paper contributes to extant knowledge by delineating an entity: its goal is “to detail, chart, describe, or depict an entity and its relationship to other entities” (MacInnis 2011 ). In a conceptual article, creative scope is unfettered by data-related limitations, allowing the researcher to explore and model emerging phenomena where few empirical data are available (Yadav 2010 ). The model paper typically contributes by providing a roadmap for understanding the entity in question by delineating the focal concept, how it changes, the processes by which it operates, or the moderating conditions that may affect it (MacInnis 2011 ).

A model paper typically begins from a focal phenomenon or construct that warrants further explanation. For example, Huang and Rust ( 2018 ) sought to explain the process and mechanism by which artificial intelligence (AI) will replace humans in service jobs. They employed literature that tackles key variables associated with the target phenomenon: service research illuminates the focal phenomenon, technology-enabled services, and research across multiple disciplines discusses the likely impact of AI on human labor. By synthesizing this literature pool, they identified four types of intelligence and then built a theory that could predict the impact of AI on human service labor. This involved a particular kind of formal reasoning, supported by research from multiple disciplines and real-world applications (Huang and Rust 2018 ). In other words, the authors use method theories and deductive reasoning to explain relationships between key variables, facilitated by theories in use (MacInnis 2011 ).

Model papers typically summarize arguments in the form of a figure that depicts the salient constructs and their relationships, or as a set of formal propositions that are logical statements derived from the conceptual framework (Meredith 1993 ). For example, Payne et al. ( 2017 ) used resource-based theory to develop a conceptual model of the antecedents and outcomes of customer value propositions. While figures and propositions of this kind help the reader by condensing the paper’s main message, Delbridge and Fiss ( 2013 ) noted that they are also a double-edged sword. At their best, propositions distill the essence of an argument into a parsimonious and precise form, but by virtue of this very ability, they also put a spotlight on the weaknesses in the argument chain. According to Cornelissen ( 2017 ), the researcher should therefore be clear about the “causal agent” in any proposed relationship between constructs when developing propositions—in other words, the trigger or force that drives a particular outcome or effect. Careful consideration and justification of the choice of theories and the manner in which they are integrated to produce the arguments is hence pivotal in sharpening and clarifying the argumentation to convince reviewers and readers.

Conclusions

This paper highlights the role of methodological considerations in conceptual papers by discussing alternative types of research design, in the hope of encouraging researchers to critically assess and develop conceptual papers accordingly. Authors of conceptual papers should readily answer the following questions: What is the logic of creating new knowledge? Why are particular information sources selected, and how are they analyzed? What role does each theory play? For reviewers, assessing conceptual papers can be difficult not least because the generally accepted and readily available guidelines for evaluating empirical research seldom apply directly to non-empirical work. By asking these questions, reviewers and supervisors can evaluate whether the research design of a paper or thesis is carefully crafted and clearly communicated to the reader.

The paper identifies four types of conceptual papers—Theory Synthesis, Theory Adaptation, Typology, and Model—and discusses their aims, methods of theory use, and potential contributions. Although this list is not exhaustive, these types offer basic templates for designing conceptual research and determining its intended contribution (cf. MacInnis 2011 ). Careful consideration of these alternative types can facilitate more conscious selection of approach and structure for a conceptual paper. Researchers can also consider opportunities for combining types. In many cases, mixing two types can be an attractive option. For example, after distinguishing types of service innovation in terms of their conceptual underpinnings, Helkkula et al. ( 2018 ) synthesized a novel conceptualization of service innovation that exploited the strengths of each type and mitigated their limitations. Typologies can also provide the basis for models, and synthesis can lead to theory adaptation.

This paper highlights the many alternative routes along which conceptual papers can advance extant knowledge. We should consider conceptual papers not just as a means to take stock, but to break new ground. Empirical research takes time to accumulate, and the scope for generalization is relatively narrow. In contrast, conceptual papers can strive to advance understanding of a concept or phenomenon in big leaps rather than incremental steps. To be taken seriously, any such leap must be grounded in thorough consideration and justification of an appropriate research design.

A discussion of how different theoretical lenses can be integrated is beyond the scope of this paper, but see for example Okhuysen and Bonardi ( 2011 ) and Gioia and Pitre ( 1990 ).

Alexander, M. J., Jaakkola, E., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2018). Zooming out: Actor engagement beyond the dyadic. Journal of Service Management, 29 (3), 333–351.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36 (2), 247–271.

Google Scholar  

Becker, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2020). Customer experience: Fundamental premises and implications for research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00718-x .

Brodie, R. J., Fehrer, J. A., Jaakkola, E., & Conduit, J. (2019). Actor engagement in networks: Defining the conceptual domain. Journal of Service Research, 22 (2), 173–188.

Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11 (1), 35–49.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12–32.

Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42 (1), 1–9.

Cropanzano, R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35 (6), 1304–1311.

De Brentani, U., & Reid, S. E. (2012). The fuzzy front-end of discontinuous innovation: Insights for research and management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29 (1), 70–87.

Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38 (3), 325–331.

Dong, B., & Sivakumar, K. (2017). Customer participation in services: Domain, scope, and boundaries. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (6), 944–965.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 230–251.

Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G. (2019). Marketing in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing, 83 (5), 5–27.

Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P., & Sundström, E. (2012). Customer integration within service development—A review of methods and an analysis of insitu and exsitu contributions. Technovation, 32 (7–8), 419–429.

Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 54 , 393–420.

Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research . London: Sage Publications.

Fulmer, I. S. (2012). Editor's comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, 37 , 327–331.

Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40 (2), 127–130.

Gioia, D., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 584–602.

Hartmann, N. N., Wieland, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2018). Converging on a new theoretical foundation for selling. Journal of Marketing, 82 (2), 1–18.

Helkkula, A., Kowalkowski, C., & Tronvoll, B. (2018). Archetypes of service innovation: Implications for value cocreation. Journal of Service Research, 21 (3), 284–301.

Hillebrand, B., Driessen, P. H., & Koll, O. (2015). Stakeholder marketing: Theoretical foundations and required capabilities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 411–428.

Hirschheim, R. (2008). Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9 (8), 432–441.

Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21 (2), 155–172.

King, A. W., & Lepak, D. (2011). Editors’ comments: Myth busting—What we hear and what we’ve learned about AMR. Academy of Management Review, 36 (2), 207–214.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80 , 69–96.

Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), 9–20.

Lukka, K., & Vinnari, E. (2014). Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27 (8), 1308–1338.

MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 136–154.

MacInnis, D. J., & De Mello, G. E. (2005). The concept of hope and its relevance to product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing, 69 (1), 1–14.

Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13 (5), 3–11.

Miller, D. C., & Salkind, N. J. (2002). Elements of research design. In Handbook of research design & social measurement, ed. by Miller D.C. & Salkind, J.J. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Mills, P. K., & Margulies, N. (1980). Toward a core typology of service organizations. Academy of Management Review, 5 (2), 255–266.

Möller, K. (2013). Theory map of business marketing: Relationships and networks perspectives. Industrial Marketing Management, 42 (3), 324–335.

Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J. (2011). The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 6–11.

Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 1–5.

Payne, A., Frow, P., & Eggert, A. (2017). The customer value proposition: Evolution, development, and application in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (4), 467–489.

Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing social research . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43 (1), 59–86.

Snow, C. C., & Ketchen Jr., D. J. (2014). Typology-driven theorizing: A response to Delbridge and Fiss. Academy of Management Review, 39 (2), 231–233.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68 , 1–17.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 5–23.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly , xiii–xxiii.

White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83 (3), 22–49.

Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74 (1), 1–19.

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, FIN-20014, Turku, Finland

Elina Jaakkola

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elina Jaakkola .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jaakkola, E. Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Rev 10 , 18–26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2019

Accepted : 04 February 2020

Published : 09 March 2020

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Share this article

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

• Conceptual research
• Theoretical article
• Methodology
• Research design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research