THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Definition
Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to
challenge and extend existing knowledge, within the limits of the critical bounding assumptions. The
theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The
theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory which explains why the research problem
under study exists.
Importance of Theory
A theoretical framework consists of concepts, together with their definitions, and existing
theory/theories that are used for your particular study. The theoretical framework must
demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your 
research paper and that will relate it to the broader fields of knowledge in the class you are taking.
The theoretical framework is not something that is found readily available in the literature.
You must review course readings and pertinent research literature for theories and analytic models
that are relevant to the research problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should
depend on its appropriateness, ease of application, and explanatory power.
The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways.

1. An explicit statement of  theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them
critically.
2. The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a
relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
3. Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions
of why and how. It permits you to move from simply describing a phenomenon observed to
generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
4. Having a theory helps you to identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical
framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest. It alerts you to
examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.

By virtue of its application nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because it
fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges of a phenomenon, often
experienced but unexplained in the world in which we live, so that we may use that knowledge and
understanding to act in more informed and effective ways.

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Drafting an Argument.

Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research
Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.
Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I.  Developing the Framework

Here are some strategies to develop of an effective theoretical framework:

1. Examine your thesis title and research problem. The research problem anchors your
entire study and forms the basis from which you construct your theoretical framework.
2. Brainstorm on what you consider to be the key variables in your research. Answer the
question, what factors contribute to the presumed effect?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3. Review related literature to find answers to your research question.
4. List  the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these
variables into independent and dependent categories.
5. Review the key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings
and choose the theory or theories that can best explain the relationships between the key
variables in your study [note the Writing Tip on this page].
6. Discuss the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out their relevance to
your research.

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific
variables and defining the specific viewpoint (framework) that the researcher will take in analyzing
and interpreting the data to be gathered, understanding concepts and variables according to the
given definitions, and building knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

II.  Purpose
Think of theories as the conceptual basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing ways
to investigate relationships within social systems. To the end, the following roles served by a
theory can help guide the development of your framework.*

 Means by which new research data can be interpreted and coded for future use,
 Response to new problems that have no previously identified solutions strategy,
 Means for identifying and defining research problems,
 Means for prescribing or evaluating solutions to research problems,
 Way of telling us that certain facts among the accumulated knowledge are important and
which facts are not,
 Means of giving old data new interpretations and new meaning,
 Means by which to identify important new issues and prescribe the most critical research
questions that need to be answered to maximize understanding of the issue,
 Means of providing members of a professional discipline with a common language and a
frame of reference for defining boundaries of their profession, and
 Means to guide and inform research so that it can, in turn, guide research efforts and
improve professional practice.

*Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton

III , editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice. (San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is
Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.
Structure and Writing Style
The theoretical framework may be rooted in a specific theory, in which case, you are expected
to test the validity of an existing theory in relation to specific events, issues, or phenomena. Many
social science research papers fit into this rubric. For example, Peripheral Realism theory, which
categorizes perceived differences between nation-states as those that give orders, those that obey,
and those that rebel, could be used as a means for understanding conflicted relationships among
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
countries in Africa. A test of this theory could be the following: Does Peripheral Realism theory help
explain intra-state actions, such as, the growing split between southern and northern Sudan that
may likely lead to the creation of two nations?
However, you may not always be asked by your professor to test a specific theory in your
paper, but to develop your own framework from which your analysis of the research problem
is derived. Given this, it is perhaps easiest to understand the nature and function of a theoretical
framework if it is viewed as the answer to two basic questions:

1. What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and the state
relate during periods of conflict?"]
2. Why is your approach a feasible solution? [I could choose to test Instrumentalist or
Circumstantialists models developed among Ethnic Conflict Theorists that rely upon socio-
economic-political factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical
model to periods of war between nations].

The answers to these questions come from a thorough review of the literature and your course
readings [summarized and analyzed in the next section of your paper] and the gaps in the research
that emerge from the review process. With this in mind, a complete theoretical framework will
likely not emerge until after you have completed a thorough review of the literature.

In writing this part of your research paper, keep in mind the following:

 Clearly describe the framework, concepts, models, or specific theories that underpin
your study. This includes noting who the key theorists are in the field who have conducted
research on the problem you are investigating and, when necessary, the historical context
that supports the formulation of that theory. This latter element is particularly important if the
theory is relatively unknown or it is borrowed from another discipline.
 Position your theoretical framework within a broader context of related frameworks,
concepts, models, or theories. There will likely be several concepts, theories, or models
that can be used to help develop a framework for understanding the research problem.
Therefore, note why the framework you've chosen is the appropriate one.
 The present tense is used when writing about theory.
 You should make your theoretical assumptions as explicit as possible. Later, your
discussion of methodology should be linked back to this theoretical framework.
 Don’t just take what the theory says as a given! Reality is never accurately represented in
such a simplistic way; if you imply that it can be, you fundamentally distort a reader's ability
to understand the findings that emerge. Given this, always note the limitiations of the
theoretical framework you've chosen [i.e., what parts of the research problem require further
investigation because the theory does not explain a certain phenomena].

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Conceptual Framework:
What Do You Think is Going On? College of Engineering. University of Michigan; Drafting an Argument.
Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building
Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 (August 2002): 221-241;
Tavallaei, Mehdi and Mansor Abu Talib. A General Perspective on the Role of Theory in Qualitative
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Research. Journal of International Social Research 3 (Spring 2010); Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of
Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

SAMPLE

Public Perceptions on Domestic Sex Trafficking and Domestic Sex Trafficking Victims: A Quantitative
Analysis

Theoretical Framework: Schema Theory

Schema theory is utilized in criminal justice research to better understand the perceptions

of law enforcement towards certain offenses and offenders (Robinson, 2000). Schemata are

defined as powerful learning and developmental tools that help individuals fit acquired

observations into pre-defined categories (Fiske & Linville, 1980). These observations develop

through the individual’s past experiences with people, objects, and events and predicted how the

individual would respond in future situations. Research shows that when schemas are developed

through experiences, schemas are activated by familiar characteristics and are difficult to alter

(Farrell et al., 2015).

Schema theory (1998) proposes that knowledge is organized into units and within the

units, or schemata, is stored information. “All of our generic knowledge is embedded in

schemata” (Rumelhart, 1980, p. 41). Schemata also refer to theoretical concepts, which are

hierarchically categorized and webbed into complex relationships. Schemata develops and

changes as the individual interprets new information and experiences (Pankin, 2013). Schemata

also affect the way individuals interpret observations and respond to new information and

experiences (Rumelhart &Norman, 1978).

Schema theory was first theorized by F.C. Bartlett in his publication, Remembering

(Bartlett, 1932). Bartlett (1932) researched how schemas were affected by individual’s
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
procedural memory. He found that past experiences helped individuals interpret new experiences

because they permitted expectations. Furthermore, he found that repetitive encounters allowed

individuals to generalize experiences and develop expectations.

Jean Piaget, whom theorized cognitive development theory, furthered the exploration of

schemas (Pankin, 2013). Piaget found that new information was integrated into current schemas

and cognitive dissonance was caused by newly integrated schemas, which changed to

accommodate new information (Cherry, 2017). He proposed that schemas were changed through

assimilation and accommodation. In assimilation, new information was incorporated into preexisting
schemas; whereas, in accommodation, existing schemas were altered or new schema

were formed as individuals learned new information and had new experiences. The process of

assimilation was subjective because individuals modified previous information or experiences to

fit in with preexisting beliefs (Trauma Research & Treatment, 2012).

Piaget also proposed that there were three factors contributing to an individual’s

cognitive development, all of which could affect the individuals’ schema (Pankin, 2013). These

factors included: biological development, interaction with the world through nature and objects,

and interaction with others. Through these factors, self-schema, adult learning and development,

schema and gender, and schema and culture were established (Pankin, 2013). Adult learning and

development and schema and culture were particularly important for the purpose of this thesis.

Schemata continued to develop over the course of adulthood as individuals’ microsystems,

mesosystems, and exosystems changed (Pankin, 2013). Therefore, as individuals experienced

new situations, they accommodated and assimilated new knowledge as a response to that

situation. Schema theory reinforced the importance of pre-existing knowledge and the use of

learning aids to associate new knowledge to knowledge previously stored in schemas (Merriam,
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).

Individuals also developed cultural schemas and schemas for cultural understanding that

supported cultural identity. “A schema for understanding culture is culture-general-that is, it

reflects knowledge that applies to all cultures (Renstch, Mot, & Abbe, 2009, p 1). Schemas for

cultural understanding contrasted with the construction of stereotypes:

A schema for cultural understanding is more than just a stereotype about members of a

culture. Whereas stereotypes tend to be rigid, a schema is dynamic and subject to

revision. Whereas stereotypes tend to simplify and ignore group differences, a schema

can be quite complex (Renstch et al., 2009, p. 3).

These two perspectives, adult learning and development and cultural schemas, are important

because both influence how people perceive human trafficking as a crime and the victims

involved. Di Tomasso, Strom, Shilma, & Bittito (2009) found that cultural schemata related to

paying for sex influenced the overall demand for the commercial sex economy. Because cultural

schemata vary between societies, the influence cultural schemata have on the public’s

perceptions of prostitution interfere with the public’s perceptions of sex trafficking victims.

Although little research has been conducted on the public’s perception of sex trafficking and sex

trafficking victims, research has been conducted on police perceptions of both. Previous research

on the topic has utilized schema theory (Farrell et al., 2015).As an example, Farrell et al. (2015)

found that law enforcement perceived human trafficking as a type of prostitution and that some

agencies did not distinguish between the two. It was more common for law enforcement to refer

to sex trafficking victims as ‘prostitutes,’ identifying the victims as perpetrators, rather than as

victims. Thus, prostitution was the most common existing schema law enforcement used to

comprehend human trafficking. The results of this study suggested that law enforcement’s
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
comprehension of human trafficking, through prostitution schema, limited the types of cases

considered to be human trafficking. It also led some law enforcement to misidentify victims.

Matthews (2005) found that it is common for law enforcement personnel to believe individuals

selling sex did so willingly and this assumption lead them to believe there was no victimization

present in human trafficking cases. Prostitution schema also prevented law enforcement from

identifying other types of labor trafficking or trafficking of groups not identified in traditional

prostitution enforcement (Farrell et al., 2015).

In addition, Halter (2010) and Mitchell et al. (2010) conducted studies on law

enforcement’s perceptions of sex trafficking victims. Halter (2010) found that some law

enforcement personnel viewed sex trafficking victims as offenders, despite laws translating

otherwise. Mitchell et al. (2010) found that 31% of minors involved in sex trafficking were

identified as delinquents rather than victims. Law enforcement’s skewed perceptions occurred

because law enforcement lacked both training in how to identify incidents of sex trafficking and

institutional resources to help guide how law enforcement responded to sex trafficking cases

(Farrell et al., 2015). Law enforcement were unlikely to understand the magnitude of human

trafficking due to an unfamiliarity with the legal definitions of human trafficking. This

unfamiliarity further mispresented what human trafficking was (Newman, Mulcahy, & Martin,

2008)