theoretical contribution thesis example

Home » Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Table of Contents

Research Contribution

Definition:

Research contribution refers to a novel and significant addition to a particular field of study that advances the existing knowledge, theories, or practices. It could involve new discoveries, original ideas, innovative methods, or insightful interpretations that contribute to the understanding, development, or improvement of a specific research area.

Research Contribution in Thesis

In a thesis , the research contribution is the original and novel aspect of the research that adds new knowledge to the field. It can be a new theory , a new methodology , a new empirical finding, or a new application of existing knowledge.

To identify the research contribution of your thesis, you need to consider the following:

What problem are you addressing in your research? What is the research gap that you are filling?
What is your research question or hypothesis, and how does it relate to the problem you are addressing?
What methodology have you used to investigate your research question or hypothesis, and why is it appropriate?
What are the main findings of your research, and how do they contribute to the field?
What are the implications of your research findings for theory, practice, or policy?

Once you have identified your research contribution, you should clearly articulate it in your thesis abstract, introduction, and conclusion. You should also explain how your research contribution relates to the existing literature and how it advances the field. Finally, you should discuss the limitations of your research and suggest future directions for research that build on your contribution.

How to Write Research Contribution

Here are some steps you can follow to write a strong research contribution:

Define the research problem and research question : Clearly state the problem or gap in the literature that your research aims to address. Formulate a research question that your study will answer.
Conduct a thorough literature review: Review the existing literature related to your research question. Identify the gaps in knowledge that your research fills.
Describe the research design and methodology : Explain the research design, methods, and procedures you used to collect and analyze data. This includes any statistical analysis or data visualization techniques.
Present the findings: Clearly present your findings, including any statistical analyses or data visualizations that support your conclusions. This should be done in a clear and concise manner, and the conclusions should be based on the evidence you’ve presented.
Discuss the implications of the findings: Describe the significance of your findings and the implications they have for the field of study. This may include recommendations for future research or practical applications of your findings.
Conclusion : Summarize the main points of your research contribution and restate its significance.

When to Write Research Contribution in Thesis

A research contribution should be included in the thesis when the research work adds a novel and significant value to the existing body of knowledge. The research contribution section of a thesis is the opportunity for the researcher to articulate the unique contributions their work has made to the field.

Typically, the research contribution section appears towards the end of the thesis, after the literature review, methodology, results, and analysis sections. In this section, the researcher should summarize the key findings and their implications for the field, highlighting the novel aspects of the work.

Example of Research Contribution in Thesis

An example of a research contribution in a thesis can be:

“The study found that there was a significant relationship between social media usage and academic performance among college students. The findings also revealed that students who spent more time on social media had lower GPAs than those who spent less time on social media. These findings are original and contribute to the literature on the impact of social media on academic performance, providing insights that can inform policies and practices for improving students’ academic success.”

Another example of a research contribution in a thesis:

“The research identified a novel method for improving the efficiency of solar panels by incorporating nanostructured materials. The results showed that the use of these materials increased the conversion efficiency of solar panels by up to 30%, which is a significant improvement over traditional methods. This contribution advances the field of renewable energy by providing a new approach to enhancing the performance of solar panels, with potential applications in both residential and commercial settings.”

Purpose of Research Contribution

Purpose of Research Contribution are as follows:

Here are some examples of research contributions that can be included in a thesis:

Development of a new theoretical framework or model
Creation of a novel methodology or research approach
Discovery of new empirical evidence or data
Application of existing theories or methods in a new context
Identification of gaps in the existing literature and proposing solutions
Providing a comprehensive review and analysis of existing literature in a particular field
Critically evaluating existing theories or models and proposing improvements or alternatives
Making a significant contribution to policy or practice in a particular field.

Advantages of Research Contribution

Including research contributions in your thesis can offer several advantages, including:

Establishing originality: Research contributions help demonstrate that your work is original and unique, and not simply a rehashing of existing research. It shows that you have made a new and valuable contribution to the field.
Adding value to the field : By highlighting your research contributions, you are demonstrating the value that your work adds to the field. This can help other researchers build on your work and advance the field further.
Differentiating yourself: In academic and professional contexts, it’s important to differentiate yourself from others. Including research contributions in your thesis can help you stand out from other researchers in your field, potentially leading to opportunities for collaboration, networking, or future job prospects.
Providing clarity : By articulating your research contributions, you are providing clarity to your readers about what you have achieved. This can help ensure that your work is properly understood and appreciated by others.
Enhancing credibility : Including research contributions in your thesis can enhance your credibility as a researcher, demonstrating that you have the skills and knowledge necessary to make valuable contributions to your field. This can help you build a strong reputation in the academic community.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Research Paper Title Page – Example and Making...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Assignment – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Future Research – Thesis Guide

How are theoretical contributions written? Some samples with illustrations.

Whetten (1989) elucidated in his paper in the academy of management that theoretical contribution or development is not aimed to rewrite the same phenomenon but to search new knowledge/findings (can be a mediator or moderator or new antecedent) having logical justification. It can be Whys, Whats, and Hows? So when we find a new relationship between the constructs which has not been explored in preceding studies, the next step is to explain why such a relationship exists.

Figure I what is the theoretical contribution

For example, in Figure 2 You may witness that the second sentence says the relationship between IL (inclusive leadership) and creativity has been studied (Javed et al. 2019); however, the relationship between IL and innovative work behavior (IWB) is new in the literature. The second and third sentences support the above relationship with reasons and justifications. Next, the authors compare the finding with previous studies.

Figure II an example from the papers

Another example of a theoretical contribution taken from the journal of Business ethics (Wang, Zhang, and Jia 2019) first reveals that CSR (corporate social responsibility has been for the first time linked with employees’ voices. However, strategic management research or past management studies mostly focus on or connect CSR with company performance. After that, the authors have cited various past studies. The contribution ends with an explanation and confirms that CSR can influence two kinds of employee voice. The last sentence reveals why this finding is significant.

Figure III an example from JBE

Another example is taken from the journal of sustainable tourism. It explicates that this is the first study that has investigated the green creativity phenomenon in the tourism industry. However, figure four indicates that ESSL has impact on green creativity, which is a theoretical contribution in the context of the tourism industry. Next, the comparison between two leadership styles are elaborated in the paragraph.

Figure IV theoretical contribution from JOST

Figure V Contribution from JBE

The picture is taken from the Tourism Management journal (Mittal and Dhar 2016)

Figure five presents a much simpler and shortest approach to writing the theoretical contribution in the research papers. It just elucidates and explains the relationships with no details and past literature. It seems the journal has different criteria for theoretical contributions.

Different journals and authors have different approaches to writing theoretical contributions. My learning suggests that relationships between the constructs should be new (novel), with strong theoretical justification and explanation (why), and the authors also have the responsibility to guide the reviewers that what has been done in past and how your relationship is different and fitted there.

Your opinion and experience is always solicited and would add to our knowledge.

The Author is a Ph.D. scholar in HRM and can be reached at the following addresses.

Tahseen Ahemd Bhutto

Wechat: tahaeenahmed

Whatsap: +92 313 1012 386

References:

Javed, Basharat, Sayyed Muhammad Mehdi Raza Naqvi, Abdul Karim Khan, Surendra Arjoon, and Hafiz Habib Tayyeb. 2019. “Impact of Inclusive Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety.” Journal of Management and Organization 25 (1): 117–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.3 .

Mittal, Swati, and Rajib Lochan Dhar. 2016. “Effect of Green Transformational Leadership on Green Creativity: A Study of Tourist Hotels.” Tourism Management 57: 118–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.05.007 .

Wang, Juan, Zhe Zhang, and Ming Jia. 2019. “Echoes of Corporate Social Responsibility: How and When Does CSR Influence Employees’ Promotive and Prohibitive Voices?” Journal of Business Ethics , no. March. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04151-6 .

Whetten, David A. 1989. “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” Academy Management Review 14 (4): 490–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371 .

Published by

Tahseen ahmed bhutto.

PhD Scholar at University of Finance and Economics View all posts by Tahseen Ahmed Bhutto

How To Write A Theoretical Research Paper – Tips & Examples

Writing a theoretical research paper might seem tough, but it’s a great way to share your ideas and discoveries. This guide will show you step-by-step how to plan, write, and share your thoughts through a strong research paper.

We’ll give you tips on how to build a clear framework and how to explain your thoughts clearly. You’ll also see examples that help make everything easier to understand.

Whether you’re a student or a researcher, these tips will help you write a paper that’s well-organized and full of good information. Let’s get started and learn how to create a great research paper!

How To Write A Theoretical Research Paper

What is theoretical research.

Theoretical research might sound daunting, but once you dive into its essence, it is simple.

In theoretical research, you focus on creating and exploring theories, models, and frameworks to understand and explain phenomena.

As you do this, you may not necessarily rely on direct observation or data collection.

In theoretical research, everything begins with a hypothesis. This hypothesis acts as a springboard for developing a complete theoretical framework.

In the context of a research paper, especially in the social sciences, this type of research does not involve direct interaction with the subject of study. Instead, it focuses on the analysis of the research problem through a conceptual lens.

This lens is crafted from existing theory and literature review, which guides the research process meticulously.

The framework you’ve chosen essentially acts as a map, outlining the research questions and the methodology to explore these questions without the immediate need for empirical data.

One might wonder about the practical applications of such research. Theoretical models are not just abstract concepts; they are used to help develop practical solutions and interventions.

In psychology, a theoretical model might be applied to periods of significant social change to predict outcomes and suggest interventions.

Theoretical research can seem isolated from real-world applications, yet it serves as the foundation upon which more practical, or empirical research builds.

Without it, the structure of science would lack depth and fail to reach the heights of innovation and discovery that we see today.

Theoretical vs Empirical Research

Aside from theoretical research, theres also another type of research – empirical. Understanding the differences may help you significantly.

Theoretical research delves deep into concepts and abstracts. Here, you build your study around existing theories, crafting a theoretical framework that drives your inquiry.

In the social sciences, this could mean developing a new hypothesis on the dynamics of social change based on key social science theories from literature.

The theoretical framework serves not just as a guide but as a lens through which you examine your research problem. It’s crafted from thorough literature reviews and is often enriched by engaging with the philosophy of research.

This framework outlines key variables and the relationships among them, setting the stage for potential validation or challenge through empirical methods.

On the other hand, empirical research demands direct interaction with the subject matter through data collection.

Empirical research seeks to validate the theories posited by your theoretical framework. Here, the focus shifts to practical applications and direct observations, providing concrete answers to your research questions.

Both research types are vital, each feeding into the other:

Theoretical research frames the questions and potential explanations, while
Empirical research tests these frameworks against reality.

Together, they form the complete cycle of the research process, crucial for any scholarly research project.

Writing a theoretical research paper can seem daunting, but with the right approach, you can tackle this intellectually stimulating task with confidence. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

Step 1: Understand Your Research Problem

Your journey begins with a deep understanding of the research problem you are investigating.

This involves identifying the gaps in existing literature and pinpointing the areas that require further exploration. You may want to spend some time reading around, or use AI tools to help simplifying your reading process.

Engage with key theories and recent studies to sharpen your focus. The research problem forms the nucleus of your paper, guiding every subsequent step.

Step 2: Develop a Robust Theoretical Framework

Constructing a theoretical framework is crucial. This framework is the scaffolding of your research, supporting your entire study.

It consists of concepts and theories borrowed from existing literature and uniquely integrated to address your research problem.

Remember, a strong framework not only guides your analysis but also helps explain the relationships among key variables in your study.

Step 3: Literature Review

Your literature review should do more than summarize existing research; it should critically engage with current theories and frameworks, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.

This section is not just a backdrop; it’s an active participant in shaping your research narrative. Organize it into a logical framework that systematically addresses the research questions posed by your study.

Literature review used to take a long time to complete. With the right tools however, things can be a lot easier:

Step 4: Outline Your Research Design

While theoretical research does not involve empirical data collection, the design of your research is still paramount. Detail the methods you use to construct your theoretical framework.

Discuss the “theory-building research methods” that you applied, such as conceptual analysis or deductive reasoning, which help clarify and test the theoretical assumptions of your study.

Step 5: Develop the Theory or Conceptual Framework

Here’s where you get to argue your point. Present your theoretical or conceptual contributions. Build upon previous research but introduce your innovative perspective.

Support each argument with robust reasoning, examples from pertinent research, and references to foundational texts.

This is also where you validate or challenge theoretical assumptions, demonstrating the novelty and relevance of your framework.

Step 6: Hypothetical Scenarios or Thought Experiments

Illustrate your concepts through hypothetical scenarios or thought experiments.

These are essential for demonstrating how your theoretical model applies to real-world situations or specific periods, even if your paper is purely conceptual.

This step is particularly engaging, as it transforms abstract concepts into tangible insights.

Step 7: Discussion

Analyse the implications of your theoretical developments. How do they:

Impact existing theories? or
What do they mean for future research?

This part of your paper is crucial for engaging with the scholarly community. It’s where you:

interpret your findings,
discuss their significance, and
propose how they can guide future empirical or theoretical research.

Step 8: Craft Your Discussion Section

The discussion section is your chance to dive deep into the analysis of your theoretical propositions.

Evaluate the strengths and limitations of your framework, discuss its potential applications, and how it challenges or supports existing paradigms.

This section is not just a summary; it’s an insightful discourse that positions your research within the broader academic conversation.

Step 9: Concluding Thoughts

Summarize the key elements of your research, reinforcing the significance of your findings and their implications for further study.

Restate the research problem and reflect on how your work addresses it effectively.

Here, you tie all the sections together, reinforcing the coherence and impact of your theoretical investigation.

Step 10: Reference Section

No academic paper is complete without a thorough reference section. List all the sources you’ve cited throughout your paper.

This is crucial for academic integrity and allows other researchers to trace your intellectual journey. Make sure your referencing follows the specific style guide recommended by your field or university.

There are many AI tools that can help with references , so make sure you leverage technology to help you here.

By following these steps, you ensure that your theoretical research paper is not only structurally sound but also intellectually robust and poised to make a significant contribution to academic knowledge.

Remember, a well-crafted theoretical paper influences ongoing debates and paves the way for new inquiries and methodologies in the field.

Tips When Writing A Theoretical Research Paper

If you are looking to start writing your first theoretical research paper, here are some tips to help make the process easier:

Establish a Robust Theoretical Framework

Your research should start with a solid theoretical framework that consists of concepts and theories relevant to the research problem you are investigating.

If your topic concerns social media’s influence on mental health, you might integrate theories from psychology and communications. This framework not only shapes your study but also helps to interpret your findings.

Conduct a Thorough Literature Review

Dive deep into existing theory and scholarly research, examining studies that both support and contradict your hypothesis.

This comprehensive review not only furnishes you with a nuanced understanding of your topic but also positions your research within the broader academic conversation.

Formulate Clear Research Questions

Theoretical research thrives on well-defined research questions. These questions should be rooted in the theoretical framework you’ve chosen and aim to explore the key variables and their relationships in your study.

Precision here will guide your entire research process, ensuring that every part of your paper contributes toward answering these questions.

Choose Appropriate Research Methods

Deciding on the right research methods is crucial. Ensure that the techniques you select align well with your theoretical assumptions and research questions, whether you opt for:

qualitative research,
intervention research, or
a mixed methods approach,

This alignment is necessary to gather valid and reliable data that supports or challenges your theoretical model.

Apply a Conceptual Framework If Needed

Sometimes, a single theoretical framework may not suffice, especially in interdisciplinary research. In such cases, developing a conceptual framework that integrates multiple theories could be more effective.

This approach was applied in a study about the educational split between Southern and Northern Sudan, where political science and educational theory provided a richer understanding of the regional disparities.

Discuss Methodology Transparently

When you write the discussion part of your paper, be transparent about your methodology. Explaining the meaning behind your choice of research design and how it’s used for your particular study adds credibility to your work.

It shows that your research methods and theoretical foundation are not just arbitrarily chosen but are thoughtfully aligned with the overall objectives of your research.

Interpret Results Within the Theoretical Framework

Finally, when presenting your results, always relate them back to the theoretical framework you set out with.

This not only reinforces the relevance of your findings within the academic field but also helps in validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

It’s here in the discussion section where you can engage deeply with the framework, proposing modifications or confirming its validity based on your findings.

Theoretical Research Paper: Not Rocket Science

Writing a theoretical research paper requires a meticulous blend of theory, critical thinking, and structured methodology.

By following the outlined steps, from developing a strong theoretical framework to effectively discussing your findings, you equip yourself with the tools to produce insightful and scholarly work.

Remember, the strength of your paper lies in how well you can integrate theory with your analytical insights, paving the way for further research and contributing to your field’s body of knowledge.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

Link to facebook
Link to linkedin
Link to twitter
Link to youtube
Writing Tips

How to Write an “Implications of Research” Section

4-minute read

24th October 2022

When writing research papers , theses, journal articles, or dissertations, one cannot ignore the importance of research. You’re not only the writer of your paper but also the researcher ! Moreover, it’s not just about researching your topic, filling your paper with abundant citations, and topping it off with a reference list. You need to dig deep into your research and provide related literature on your topic. You must also discuss the implications of your research.

Interested in learning more about implications of research? Read on! This post will define these implications, why they’re essential, and most importantly, how to write them. If you’re a visual learner, you might enjoy this video .

What Are Implications of Research?

Implications are potential questions from your research that justify further exploration. They state how your research findings could affect policies, theories, and/or practices.

Implications can either be practical or theoretical. The former is the direct impact of your findings on related practices, whereas the latter is the impact on the theories you have chosen in your study.

Example of a practical implication: If you’re researching a teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.

Example of a theoretical implication: You added a new variable to Theory A so that it could cover a broader perspective.

Finally, implications aren’t the same as recommendations, and it’s important to know the difference between them .

Questions you should consider when developing the implications section:

● What is the significance of your findings?

● How do the findings of your study fit with or contradict existing research on this topic?

● Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support them, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge them, why do you think that is?

Why Are Implications Important?

You need implications for the following reasons:

● To reflect on what you set out to accomplish in the first place

● To see if there’s a change to the initial perspective, now that you’ve collected the data

● To inform your audience, who might be curious about the impact of your research

How to Write an Implications Section

Usually, you write your research implications in the discussion section of your paper. This is the section before the conclusion when you discuss all the hard work you did. Additionally, you’ll write the implications section before making recommendations for future research.

Implications should begin with what you discovered in your study, which differs from what previous studies found, and then you can discuss the implications of your findings.

Your implications need to be specific, meaning you should show the exact contributions of your research and why they’re essential. They should also begin with a specific sentence structure.

Examples of starting implication sentences:

● These results build on existing evidence of…

● These findings suggest that…

● These results should be considered when…

● While previous research has focused on x , these results show that y …

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

You should write your implications after you’ve stated the results of your research. In other words, summarize your findings and put them into context.

The result : One study found that young learners enjoy short activities when learning a foreign language.

The implications : This result suggests that foreign language teachers use short activities when teaching young learners, as they positively affect learning.

Example 2

The result : One study found that people who listen to calming music just before going to bed sleep better than those who watch TV.

The implications : These findings suggest that listening to calming music aids sleep quality, whereas watching TV does not.

To summarize, remember these key pointers:

● Implications are the impact of your findings on the field of study.

● They serve as a reflection of the research you’ve conducted.

● They show the specific contributions of your findings and why the audience should care.

● They can be practical or theoretical.

● They aren’t the same as recommendations.

● You write them in the discussion section of the paper.

● State the results first, and then state their implications.

Are you currently working on a thesis or dissertation? Once you’ve finished your paper (implications included), our proofreading team can help ensure that your spelling, punctuation, and grammar are perfect. Consider submitting a 500-word document for free.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Dissertation

What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on 14 February 2020 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work.

Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions. In a theoretical framework, you explain the existing theories that support your research, showing that your work is grounded in established ideas.

In other words, your theoretical framework justifies and contextualises your later research, and it’s a crucial first step for your research paper , thesis, or dissertation . A well-rounded theoretical framework sets you up for success later on in your research and writing process.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Why do you need a theoretical framework, how to write a theoretical framework, structuring your theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, frequently asked questions about theoretical frameworks.

Before you start your own research, it’s crucial to familiarise yourself with the theories and models that other researchers have already developed. Your theoretical framework is your opportunity to present and explain what you’ve learned, situated within your future research topic.

There’s a good chance that many different theories about your topic already exist, especially if the topic is broad. In your theoretical framework, you will evaluate, compare, and select the most relevant ones.

By “framing” your research within a clearly defined field, you make the reader aware of the assumptions that inform your approach, showing the rationale behind your choices for later sections, like methodology and discussion . This part of your dissertation lays the foundations that will support your analysis, helping you interpret your results and make broader generalisations .

In literature , a scholar using postmodernist literary theory would analyse The Great Gatsby differently than a scholar using Marxist literary theory.
In psychology , a behaviourist approach to depression would involve different research methods and assumptions than a psychoanalytic approach.
In economics , wealth inequality would be explained and interpreted differently based on a classical economics approach than based on a Keynesian economics one.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

To create your own theoretical framework, you can follow these three steps:

Identifying your key concepts
Evaluating and explaining relevant theories
Showing how your research fits into existing research

1. Identify your key concepts

The first step is to pick out the key terms from your problem statement and research questions . Concepts often have multiple definitions, so your theoretical framework should also clearly define what you mean by each term.

To investigate this problem, you have identified and plan to focus on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

Research question : How can the satisfaction of company X’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

By conducting a thorough literature review , you can determine how other researchers have defined these key concepts and drawn connections between them. As you write your theoretical framework, your aim is to compare and critically evaluate the approaches that different authors have taken.

After discussing different models and theories, you can establish the definitions that best fit your research and justify why. You can even combine theories from different fields to build your own unique framework if this better suits your topic.

Make sure to at least briefly mention each of the most important theories related to your key concepts. If there is a well-established theory that you don’t want to apply to your own research, explain why it isn’t suitable for your purposes.

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

Apart from summarising and discussing existing theories, your theoretical framework should show how your project will make use of these ideas and take them a step further.

You might aim to do one or more of the following:

Test whether a theory holds in a specific, previously unexamined context
Use an existing theory as a basis for interpreting your results
Critique or challenge a theory
Combine different theories in a new or unique way

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation. As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

There are no fixed rules for structuring your theoretical framework, but it’s best to double-check with your department or institution to make sure they don’t have any formatting guidelines. The most important thing is to create a clear, logical structure. There are a few ways to do this:

Draw on your research questions, structuring each section around a question or key concept
Organise by theory cluster
Organise by date

As in all other parts of your research paper , thesis, or dissertation , make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

To get a sense of what this part of your thesis or dissertation might look like, take a look at our full example .

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/the-theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples.

What are you looking for?

How to make a theoretical contribution to the field.

One of the core questions that early career researchers grapple with is how new theories are built and developed. In this blog post, Dr. Miriam Rahali outlines some of the tools that can be used to advance theory in the field of children’s media studies.

Approaches to developing a conceptual paper

So you’ve chosen a general topic , and have narrowed the scope of your research interest. You’ve done the introductory reading , and have selected the two or three theories that are most influential on your thinking. But when it comes time to articulate the theoretical contribution of your study, you start to struggle.

You’re not alone – many of us, particularly early career researchers, find theory development especially challenging. And it’s not only within the field of childhood media studies but also across disciplines. As previously discussed , it may be that scholars encounter similar problems because there is no one way to develop theory. Generating new theory is multi-faceted and complex – whether we’re looking to link work across disciplines, bridge existing theories in new and interesting ways, update theory for the digital age or broaden the scope of our thinking.

Creating new knowledge happens by building upon carefully chosen sources of information. Like the literature review process , developing a theoretical paper requires a systematic approach. However, as opposed to the ‘gap-spotting’ method of a literature review, advancing theory requires challenging and updating the status quo of the knowledge base. I will now outline some of the processes that may serve to stimulate theoretical innovation.

1. Summarise and synthesise

When undertaking a project without empirical data, conceptual clarity and logical coherence are ever more paramount. As this multi-step process will show, analytical rigour is a prerequisite for high-level theorising. After having identified the key theories and concepts related to your research interest, it could be a useful exercise to not only create a brief summary but also to justify the selection by outlining the claims, grounds, and warrants of the selected theoretical arguments:

Claims: What is the explicit thesis?

Grounds: What reasoning is employed?

Warrants: What are the presuppositions that link grounds to claims? What assumptions need to be challenged?

By marshalling logical and epistemological evidence, you are building the foundations for a convincing argument. Furthermore, by explicating the steps of the theoretical argument and delineating the conceptual underpinnings, you may be more apt to discover the commonalities between perspectives – which will enable you to construct an innovative conceptualisation.

2. Draw theoretical connections

Upon completion of the previous step, you may come to realise that a particular theory is incomplete and that an additional theory is needed to ‘bridge the gap’, or address a shortcoming in the literature. This is often the objective of a literature review, but with regard to theory-building, identifying omissions can enhance a holistic understanding of the phenomenon. As a result, you may be better positioned to integrate theory in a new way by coherently linking piecemeal concepts across diverse bodies of literature. The theoretical linkage allows you to build a case for your theoretical statement.

As you think of your own topic in relation to children’s media research, you might want to ask yourself what tradition it fits into, and whether or not you can identify how one concept links to another. For example, this may include research that shows how children learn digital skills to connect with friends online and studies about upward social comparison on social networking sites. Your theoretical linkage would help you advance the argument that increased social media use may be connected to lower self-esteem.

The first step in simplifying this process is synthesising what is already known with what is new, so it would be useful to develop a network of theories or a visualisation of their connections. In Unlocked potential: open-access tools to jump-start the literature review process , I review some digital tools for both constructing and visualising citation networks in order to identify the most influential works in your field (with a specific emphasis on open-access articles).

3. Update existing theories

Many classic theoretical canons in child development emerged in the late 20th century, but since then, real innovation has occurred. As a network of scholars , it is our responsibility to craft new and improved conceptualisations in an evolving and complex world. The media industry is particularly fast-changing, so existing theories are likely to be refined in order to reflect the contemporary landscape. The challenge becomes making pre-digital work relevant to the current context or proposing new alternatives that remedy the alleged theoretical deficiencies. As you’re selecting classic texts, ask yourself why you are reading this now, and why it is of current interest to scholars in the field. This may generate questions that not only revitalise old discussions but also advance current conversations and stimulate new debates.

4. Reconcile tensions within and between theories

As I’ve just described, generating a new theory can be the result of synthesising and updating existing theoretical insights, or drawing connections between disparate ideas. However, after careful conceptual mapping, you may reach a ‘stop’ sign when you arrive at the ‘intersection’ of two or more ideas. The paradigms may be incommensurate, and therefore it may not be possible to integrate. For example, Bourdieu’s and Foucault’s approaches to power can appear to be irreconcilable on account of clashing epistemologies. In order to effect a productive theoretical encounter between incommensurate paradigms, you have to get creative!

Because social science is often constructed as a matter of logic (or as a method following specific procedures), the creative aspect is not often acknowledged. However, in addition to precise definitions and rigorous, analytical thinking, the use of creative techniques may bring the added benefit of being able to reconcile existing tensions.

The generation of new theory could be based on new empirical data, leading you away from previously held ideas and into new terrain. There are also several tools that focus on breaking new ground, from borrowing and blending , to abduction , to the use of metaphors and analogies (which has always helped me to not only reroute the abstract to a more concrete, accessible realm but also provide theoretical unity and coherence).

Theory-building can be a daunting process, but hopefully, this blog post provides a few ideas for breaking it down into a more manageable task. Much research in the field of children’s media studies has shown an emphasis on empirical data , but don’t be held back by a (perceived) lack of attention to theory building. There are many benefits to adding theory as a device in your researcher’s toolkit, not least of which is providing a clearer direction for future research in our field.

print Print

Guest author

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Researcher at the Department of Media and Communications, LSE. In addition to media, her interests include children, gender, and consumer behaviour. Miriam holds an undergraduate degree from Columbia University, New York, a Master’s degree in Special Education, and a PhD from LSE. She has worked on inclusive education in various roles within academia and the third sector.

Share your feedback with us.

Please tell us how much you've liked your visit on the CO:RE Knowlegde Base so far.

Please share your email address with us, if you would like to be available for questions regarding your feedback.

Cookie preferences

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Translation service

Translate the website in your local language, powered by Google Translate.

External Media, e.g., videos, podcasts, etc

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

my research
contributions and comments

thesis knowhow – “the contribution” can create coherence

My Nordic colleagues often say that the thesis has to have a red thread , a line of argument that holds things together.

So what’s this red thread? Think of the red thread as a sturdy rope that guides the reader up the rocky mountain that is the thesis, making sure that they don’t fall down a crevasse or take a side track that leads nowhere.

One way to approach the red thread is to think about it through the prism of the contribution. So, to the next question. What’s “the contribution”?

Well, think about the contribution as the answer to the awkward question, “What did your research find out?”

Most of us have had the experience of being asked to sum up a complex and lengthy research project in a couple of sentences – and it’s – well – awkward to give a pithy and precise answer. I like to call it the supermarket queue question. It’s the moment when you have to reluctantly give a short and easily comprehensible answer about your research results and why they matter.

Your answer to the awkward question is “the contribution”. We have produced a something worth knowing from our research, and it speaks with, and to, what is already known about our particular topic. The contribution is our offering to the scholarly conversation.

While the contribution can wait for a Grand Reveal at the end of the thesis, it’s often better if it doesn’t. Let me explain.

Keeping an eye on the contribution can be really helpful when thinking about the thesis red thread. It can really help, when you are writing, to think about each of the various sections in relation to the contribution. And then, don’t keep it to yourself, make that connection clear to the reader.

I’ll illustrate this by pointing to some of the moves that most theses have to make, and the ways in which they relate to contribution. This is not an exhaustive elaboration – but I hope it’s enough to indicate how a focus on the contribution adds up to a red thread.

The beginning of the thesis usually establishes what the research is going to be about and why it is needed. The potential significance of the contribution is explained. The explanation about why the contribution is needed creates the warrant for the research.
The knowledge basis on which the contribution is to be made is outlined for the reader. The writer discusses the literatures that the research uses – theories/concepts and a priori definitions and assumptions, arguing why this literatures selection is important for this particular research. This literatures work locates the contribution in its field(s) and indicates what existing research might be extended or challenged.
When the thesis addresses methodology and methods, the writer explains the production of ‘evidence’ through which the contribution is to be made , how the contribution relies on an accepted research tradition, why the research is thorough, ethical and trustworthy.
The research results are reported in order to show key chunks of ‘stuff’, that when put together, are the foundation, or ‘evidence’, for the contribution .
What is often called ‘ discussion’ moves beyond description and analysis to provide an explanation of the results. Separate pieces of analysis are brought together and connected to the relevant literatures to show what the research offers that is additional, what is the same, what challenges what. The contribution is now at the point where it can be expressed as the first part of the answer to the supermarket queue question – What have you found? This is what my research says and means.
The conclusion to the thesis goes back to the original question and the reasons for doing the research. At the top of the guide rope, you look back down to see the origin of the climb. The contribution is now summarised as a kind of I-said-we-needed-to-know-this-and-now-we-do; this is often called the claims . The contribution is usually expressed as one or more points – these economically name the bodies of work which are extended/challenged by your inquiry. Depending on the discipline and research, the key contribution points may also be connected to policy and/or practice. Then the so-what and now-what of the contribution are laid out for the reader. The implications that arise from this contribution – policy, practice, further research – are spelled out. This is why the contribution matters.

So if you follow this line of argument through the thesis, the contribution becomes the organiser. It becomes the red thread.

And knowing the red thread stands you in good stead. The viva and written examination are all about the contribution. Every aspect of the viva is directed to assessing the significance of the contribution and how it was produced. And it doesn’t stop there. Very often, the contribution made in the doctorate forms the basis for further research work. It becomes a red thread through your cv and ongoing research agenda.

It’s worth finding the answer to that awkward supermarket queue question then.

Image credit: Alex Schulz. Flickr Commons

About pat thomson

7 responses to thesis knowhow – “the contribution” can create coherence.

Thanks for this really helpful advice. Coming up to writing my thesis I’ll refer back to this to keep me on the read thread.

Like Liked by 1 person

Thanks Pat, clearly articulated for the rookie and thesis supervisor…these signposts will make my supervision easier, hopefully

A brilliant distillation of the essential requirements for the final thesis – which should of course be a guide from the start! Thanks so much Pat!

Pingback: Stitching the days: a stitch diary as a reflective tool, by Clare Danek « White Rose College of the Arts & Humanities

Pingback: Comment écrire un chapitre de livre - Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD - écrire un livre sur soi - Comment écrire un livre ?

Thank you, Pat, it is beneficial both for scholar and adviser

Pingback: Developing a coherent argument throughout a book or dissertation/thesis using The Red Thread (Throughline – Global Narrative) – Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

patter on facebook

SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET

Designing theoretical and conceptual framework Contributions to thesis writing evaluation

the key argument of this paper is that both conceptual and theoretical frameworks serve different purposes and they are different-conceptually, methodologically and with regard to the scope of their application. conceptual framework is the researcher's idea on how the research problem will have to be explored.

Related Papers

Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies

Ronald Mensah

This article critically discusses, the relationship between conceptual framework and theoretical framework drawing on their differences and similarities. The article has made it very clear that whereas the theoretical framework is drawn from the existing theoretical literature that you review about your research topic, a conceptual framework is a much broader concept that encompasses practically all aspects of your research. The latter refers to the entire conceptualisation of your research project. It is the big picture, or vision, comprising the totality of research. Methodologically, the paper used systematic and experiential literature review to draw supporting scholarly literature by authorities in the field and made inferences, sound reasonings and logical deductions from these authorities. The primary aim of this paper is to help researchers and students to understand the convergence and the divergence of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in order to appropriately be applied in research and academic writing discourses. Understanding the conceptual framework affects research in many ways. For instance, it assists the researcher in identifying and constructing his/her worldview on the phenomenon to be investigated. Also, it is the simplest way through which a researcher presents his/her asserted remedies to the milieu he/she has created. In addition, this accentuates the reasons why a research topic is worth studying, the assumptions of a researcher, the scholars he/she agrees with and disagrees with and how he/she conceptually grounds his/her approach. Paying attention, to the theoretical framework and its impact on research, it can be mentioned that theoretical framework provides a structure for what to look for in the data, for how you think of how what you see in the data fits together, and helps you to discuss your findings more clearly, in light of what existing theories say. It helps the researcher to make connections between the abstract and concrete elements observed in the data. In conclusion, both theoretical framework and conceptual framework are good variables which are used to inform a study to arrive at logical findings and conclusions. It is therefore recommended by researchers that; a good theoretical framework should be capable of informing the concepts in a research work.

Jeanette Berman

The author of this paper provides an example of a conceptual framework that supported her doctoral study and written dissertation in the field of educational psychology. The study was carried out prior to the more recent explicit emphasis on conceptual frameworks in postgraduate research texts and academic literature. The instigation for the development of an explicit conceptual framework was a change in supervisors and their need to be meaningfully included in the journey of the student. The conceptual framework supported the explanation of the multiple theoretical frameworks and literature base, as well as the professional educational context of the study. It also explicitly responded to the literature search in each area, clearly articulating theory and practice in school curriculum and assessment. This in turn supported the definition of research themes and research questions, and the research methodology (data gathering and analysis), from which the meaningful consideration of ...

Sains Insani

Nabilah Abdullah

Constructing a conceptual framework has always been a problem for many postgraduate students. Even though the students are exposed to many different tools as well as guided with 21st-century skills along the process of conducting research, many of them are seeking helps to complete their postgraduate studies in stages. A solid conceptual framework is an output of conducting a literature review. The construction of a conceptual framework involves multiple research skills. To meet the requirement of thesis completion, supervisors are always emphasizing the implementation of these skills as well as finding the best practice while addressing challenges of guiding them to understand and construct a conceptual framework. Meanwhile, the supervisors must get a better picture of how their postgraduate students undergo the process of constructing a conceptual framework from their literature review. Hence, the thesis supervisors need to understand a better way for helping them to achieve the ...

Abey Dubale

Dayana Mastura, FCCA(UK), MBA

Otolaryngology online

Balasubramanian Thiagarajan

This book has been authored with PhD scholars in mind. The author believes that this would be a good starting point for these scholars. The following chapters have been included: Chapters: 1. Introduction to Thesis Writing 2. Choosing a Topic and Developing a Thesis Statement 3. Conducting Literature Review 4. Methodology and Data Collection 5. Writing the Introduction and Background of Your Thesis 6. Presenting Your Findings and Analysis 7. Writing the Discussion and Conclusion of Your Thesis 8. Formatting and Structuring Your Thesis 9. Referencing and Citations 10. Defending Your Thesis: Preparing for the Viva Voce 11. Revising and Editing Your Thesis 12. Time Management and Staying on Track 13. Overcoming Writer's Block and Staying Motivated 14. Using Technology and Tools to Enhance Your Thesis Writing Process 15. Publishing Your Thesis and Next Steps. 16. Data visualization 17. Statistical tools This book also contains tips about choosing an ideal thesis topic. It also warns the student about the various pitfalls involved in choosing a research topic. The topic on referencing citations would be very useful for even a novice researcher. This book also introduces the researcher to the myriad of software tools that are available to the scholar. Using these software tools would make the life of the researcher that much easier.

Ewnetu Tamene

The impetus of this paper is the irreplaceable role yet confusing use of the term " conceptual framework " in research literature. Even though, there is a consensus among scholars of various field of study that conceptual framework is essential element of research endeavors, yet it is used interchangeably with theoretical framework, that create confusion. As a PhD student on the pre-proposal work, this makes me more anxious. Then my intent is to explore its conceptual meaning and purposes by bringing together similar meanings from different scholars with a view to shed some light on its understanding and its use in research. Hence, in attempting to address this, the following key terms; Concept, conceptual framework research design and theoretical framework are defined briefly as to help decipher the conceptual ties among them and illuminate the conceptual meaning and purpose of conceptual framework. The schematic representation of conceptual framework is developed based on the conceptual meaning provided by scholars. In doing this it is attempted to show conceptual meaning of conceptual framework in relation to research design, paradigms and philosophical assumptions that delineate it from theoretical framework. Conceptual framework serves essential role in inductive research design, while theoretical framework serves similar role in deductive research design.

Martin Otundo Richard

ABSTRACT A number of researchers either in scientific, social or academic researchers have found it difficult to differentiate between the theoretical and conceptual framework and their importance. This is a simple overview of the basic differences and some similarities between the theoretical and conceptual framework that is aimed at helping the learners and other researchers get a fast grasp of what can help them use the two effectively in their studies. A summary has been provided at the last part of the document that can aid one get the required information in his or her research.

Njinga & Sepé Journal

REVISTA (JOURNAL) NJINGA e SEPE (ISSN:2764-1244)

The primary objective of this research paper is to introduce a conceptual framework that can serve as a guide for research development in the Field of languages and applied linguistics, particularly in the context of teaching at higher education. This conceptual framework was devised by doctoral students during the early stages of their research. One of the key aims of the conceptual framework is to help Doctorate students grasp the significance of having a well-defined conceptual framework in research. It enables them to understand how a conceptual framework serves as a foundation for their studies and helps them organize and structure their research effectively. Furthermore, the research paper emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating existing conceptual frameworks in modern research. By engaging in this critical analysis, Doctorate students can identify the strengths and weaknesses of different frameworks and gain insights into how to develop a more comprehensive and dynamic conceptual framework. Another crucial aspect covered in the research paper is the assessment of the impact of a conceptual framework on research outcomes. This text highlights the importance of understanding how a conceptual framework affects research and its outcomes. It states that a research paper aims to provide guidelines for creating and utilizing a conceptual framework, specifically for Doctorate students. The paper includes explanatory texts that explain the theory behind the framework, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of its principles and concepts. Overall, the text presents a conceptual framework for research development in languages and applied linguistics, particularly in the context of teaching at a Higher education.

Serafin Talisayon

Ruminations about making a theoretical contribution

Published: 13 October 2011
Volume 1 , pages 67–71, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

Victoria L. Crittenden 1 &
Robert A. Peterson 2

2858 Accesses

9 Citations

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

More than half a century has transpired since Lyndon O. Brown ignited the flames of the “Is marketing a science?” debate (Brown 1948 ). Brown’s article resulted in a chain reaction (Taylor 1965 ), with prominent scholars weighing in on the standards of science and marketing’s metric against such standards (see Cox and Alderson 1948 ; Vaile 1949 ; Miller 1950 ; Bartels 1951 ; Hutchinson 1952 ; Buzzell 1963 ). As predicted by Taylor, the marketing profession has been successful at attaining “a period when a maximum number of trained minds exercising scientific skill will achieve greater speed in finding significant and useful relationships in an infinite unknown” (Taylor 1965 , p. 50). Marketing scholars have exercised their scientific prowess via a large number of theory testing contributions (Yadav 2010 ). That is, marketing researchers have accomplished one tenet of the standards of science as delineated by Buzzell ( 1963 , p. 32), “…usually expressed in quantitative terms.” Marketing and non-marketing theories are purported to be tested regularly (and quantitatively) in our scholarly research.

Marketers’ contributions to theoretical development are exemplified in tier-one marketing journals with common section headings such as “Theory,” “Theoretical Analysis,” “Theoretical Background,” “Theoretical Development,” and “Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development.” Unfortunately, few of these theory-labeled sections actually propose or contain “theory” as it is construed from a marketing science perspective. Merton ( 1967 , p. 39) summarized this lack of theoretical contribution in our scholarly journals as, “Like so many words that are bandied about, the word theory threatens to become meaningless. Because its referents are so diverse—including everything from minor working hypotheses, through comprehensive vague and unordered speculations, to axiomatic systems of thought—use of the word often obscures rather than creates understanding.” Unfortunately, the lack of agreement on what constitutes theory, much less how to write a conceptual/theoretical paper, has left marketing scholars confused, thus exacerbating the difficulty of engaging in theory development and testing.

In a recent AMS Quarterly , we opined briefly on theory construction and development, with the purpose of offering some guidance for producing theoretical/conceptual contributions in marketing (Crittenden and Peterson 2011 ). Drawing on the works of skilled theorists, the objective of this editorial is to provide a brief introduction to, and overview of, suggested frameworks and schemas for creating and developing theory.

Definitions of theory

A Google web search ( 2011 ) offered the following definitions of theory:

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based

An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

Further exploration within these definitions offered elaborations as to what constitutes a “scientific” theory:

A theory that explains scientific observations; “scientific theories must be falsifiable”

An explanation or idea accepted by a substantial number of scientists

A hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs.

A statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena

A scientific theory is an explanation or model used to account for observations or experimental results characterizing an observed phenomenon.

Within the management/business discipline, illustrative definitions of theory abound. For example, theory has been viewed as

“An ordered set of assertions about a generic behavior or structure assumed to hold throughout a significantly broad range of specific instances” (Sutherland 1975 , p. 9)

“A systematically related set of statements, including some lawlike generalizations, that is empirically testable” (Rudner 1966 , p. 10)

“A statement of relationships between units observed or approximated in the empirical world” (Bacharach 1989 , p. 498)

“A collection of assertions, both verbal and symbolic, that identifies what variables are important and for what reasons, specifies how they are interrelated and why, and identifies the conditions under which they should be related or not related” (Campbell 1990 , p. 65)

Hambrick ( 2007 , p. 1346) posited that “theories help us organize our thoughts, generate coherent explanations, and improve our predictions.” Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan ( 2007 , p. 1281) provided summary statements from a wide variety of researchers: “Theory allows scientists to understand and predict outcomes of interest, even if only probabilistically,” “Theory also allows scientists to describe and explain a process or sequence of events,” “Theory prevents scholars from being dazzled by the complexity of the empirical world by providing a linguistic tool for organizing it,” “Theory acts as an educational device that can raise consciousness about a specific set of concepts,” and “Theory is the basic aim of science.” Yet, while the definitions appear straightforward and essentially say the same thing using different words and the importance of theory is inarguable, researchers continue to remain confused as to how to create and communicate a strong theory contribution (Freese 1980 ). For example, according to Sutton and Staw ( 1995 , p. 371), “There is lack of agreement about whether a model and a theory can be distinguished, whether a typology is properly labeled a theory or not, whether the strength of a theory depends on how interesting it is, and whether falsifiability is a prerequisite for the very existence of theory.”

Thus, rather than coalesce on a definition of theory, it is likely more beneficial to highlight the contributions of prominent theorists in an effort to provide the characteristics of good theory and the process of building good theory. The Academy of Management Review published several articles in 1989 that focused on criteria and methods for building good theory. We will draw from these and other articles in an effort to summarize what has been offered over time in terms of theoretical development.

The process of theory development

Stimulate interest.

According to Davis ( 1971 ), a theorist is not considered great because his/her theories are true, but because the theories are interesting. Smith ( 2003 ) referred to non-interesting ideas as “so what?” ideas, with interesting ideas being the ones that elicited a strong visceral or emotional reaction from readers. In brief, both authors suggested that interesting theories or ideas deny assumptions that one would think true, while non-interesting theories or ideas only confirm what one suspected already.

Davis ( 1971 ) created what he refers to as the Index of the Interesting and examined a large number of propositions within sociological theories to isolate common elements of interest. Basically, he found that something interesting was the negation of the accepted truth—that is, what seemed to be X was actually non-X. Weick ( 1989 ) expanded on Davis’ interesting phenomenon by offering a variety of selection criteria, which he aptly referred to as “disciplined imagination.” In doing so, he enabled would-be theorists to assess their thinking against a wider attribute base. Weick’s criteria are:

“That’s interesting”

“That’s obvious”

“That’s connected”

“That’s believable”

“That’s beautiful”

“That’s real.”

While not focused specifically on theory development, Smith ( 2003 ) offered seven suggestions for scoring high on what he referred to as the interesting Richter scale:

Test the assumptions on which a significant stream of research relies

Probe the external validity of what we take to be true

The next new thing—for example, probe contradictions between research and practice

Work backward in the causal chain

Intervene in the accepted causal chain

Challenge conventional managerial practices or beliefs

Resolve inconsistent findings.

According to Van de Ven ( 1989 , p. 486), “we need to appreciate and strengthen our skills in developing good theory.” The aforementioned scholars have attempted to aid in the theory development process by offering suggestions for putting structure around the theorizing process. Quoting Weick ( 1989 , p. 516), “the discipline in theorizing comes from consistent application of selection criteria” and “the imagination in theorizing comes from deliberate diversity introduced into…that thinking.”

Crafting theoretical/conceptual contributions

Clear articulation is important to the testing and future development of any theory (Hunt 1983 ). Lamenting the absence of a broadly-accepted framework for conceptual writing, Whetten ( 1989 ) reflected on how best to communicate the necessary ingredients of a theoretical contribution. Referencing other contributors to theory development, Whetten suggested that there are four essential elements that are the building blocks for a complete theory. The What element captures the factors that should be considered as part of the phenomena of interest. Following this, How is the element that shows the relationships between and among the identified factors (e.g., using arrows to connect boxes). The Why element is the rationale behind the model that explains the reason(s) for others to give credence to the representation. Finally, the fourth building block is comprised of Who, Where, and When , which are the conditions that place limitations on the propositions generated from the theoretical model.

Contributing to this dialogue, Bacharach ( 1989 ) focused considerable attention on the How element by distinguishing clearly between constructs and variables. While constructs and variables are related, they must be respectively isomorphic, and theorists should not use the terms synonymously (Bacharach 1989 ). The importance of constructs in theory development has been reaffirmed by numerous scholars. MacKenzie ( 2003 , p. 325) stated, “…when you are having difficulty defining a construct, it is usually because you have not really decided what you want the construct to represent.” Kaplan ( 1964 , p. 53) referred to the importance of construct development and the linkage among the What, How , and Why elements in his paradox of conceptualization, stating, “The proper concepts are needed to formulate a good theory, but we need a good theory to arrive at the proper concepts.”

The relationships among What, How, Why, Who, Where , and When are reflected in the propositions, since “the purpose of a proposition is to communicate the relationship between two or more constructs” (Bacharach 1989 , p. 503). Accordingly, constructs and their related propositions must be falsifiable (construct validity, clarity and parsimony, logical and empirical adequacy) and possess utility (explanatory potential and predictive adequacy). The importance of constructs and their relationships as denoted in propositions in theory development cannot be overstated since propositions are the source of subsequent theory testing in that one theoretical proposition might be the source for numerous hypotheses.

Bergman ( 1957 ) suggested that a scientific theory is formalized by replacing descriptive words with marks on paper. A concept map or diagram enables the researcher to present his/her theory in a systematic format that in turn enables the organization of thoughts in a visually-appealing fashion. To this end, Hair et al. ( 2007 ) went so far as to offer guidance on the format to use to depict theoretical constructs. While a conceptual map or diagram is not absolutely necessary for theoretical explication, around 80% of the theory construction and development articles in a study done by Liehr and Smith ( 1999 ) provided a visual for communicating the How element of theory.

Evaluating theoretical contributions

As noted by a member of the AMS Review editorial board, reviewing a conceptual/theoretical manuscript is not easy. An understanding of what to look for from a reviewer’s perspective is equally informative to the researcher attempting to craft a theoretical contribution. In evaluating (and preparing) a theoretical contribution, Kilduff ( 2006 ) explained theory development from various perspectives and offered guidance. For example, a logical positivist framework leads to propositions that are demonstrably testable, whereas new empirical research questions might be the result of drawing new ideas from core concepts in an ongoing research program. The perspective of Kuhn ( 1996 ), however, would be the articulation of puzzle-solving ideas within a current paradigmatic framework.

An important evaluative criterion for Bacharach ( 1989 ) was that a theory be testable—if not, it is not a theory as it does meet the falsifiability and utility criteria. Whetten ( 1989 , p. 494) provided a list of seven key questions that are used to answer the question, “What constitutes a publishable theory paper?”

What’s new? That is, does the paper make a significant, value-added contribution to current thinking?

So what? Will the theory likely change the practice of organizational science in the topical area?

Why so? Is the paper built on a foundation of convincing argumentation and grounded in practice?

Well done? Is the paper complete and thorough? That is, are the building blocks of a theory (What, How, Why, Who, When, Where) covered?

Done well? Is the paper well-written?

Why now? Is the contribution of contemporary interest to scholars?

Who cares? Is the contribution linked to core concepts and problems?

A perusal of the first issue of the Review shows four very different types of presentation styles. Even so, all four styles adhered to rigorous evaluative guidelines derived from literature.

Mistaken for theory

According to Hunt ( 1983 ), there are three criteria that distinguish a theoretical contribution from a non-theoretical contribution: (1) the systematically related criterion, (2) the lawlike generalizations criterion, and (3) the empirically testable criterion. However, it appears to be too easy for researchers to misinterpret each of these criteria. Thus, Sutton and Staw ( 1995 ) offered five very specific items that are often misconstrued as theory.

First, references are not theory. That is, illuminating an existing theory through referencing is not the same as explicating the causal logic within the theory’s foundation. Thus, a traditional literature review as found in doctoral dissertations is not synonymous with making a contribution to theory. Second, empirical data are not theory. Theory explains why; empirical data describes the patterns that were observed in the theory testing. Price ( 2010 ) referred to the lack of a need for data in theoretical/conceptual pieces as a myth. However, while data (particularly qualitative) may have facilitated the development of a theory, the distinction is that a theory development article does not contain empirical data. Third, a list of the constructs is not theory. Relationships ( How ) posed between and among constructs are theoretical contributions—not the constructs in and of themselves. Fourth, diagrams are not theory. It is important that there be a verbal explanation to accompany a diagram that explains the logic underlying the relationships. Fifth, hypotheses are not theory. It is important to remember that theory development involves constructs and propositions, whereas theory testing utilizes variables and hypotheses. Constructs/propositions focus on why something is expected to occur, whereas hypotheses are statements about what is expected occur for testing purposes.

In this issue

Further elaborating on advice about theory development, Hunt ( 2011 ) in “Developing Successful Theories in Marketing: Insights from Resource Advantage Theory” has provided insights into what makes a theory great and offers five guides for authors seeking to develop successful theories in marketing. Drawing from his own very successful marketing theory that has in excess of a thousand citations, tens of thousands search engine hits, and garnered numerous awards, Hunt seeks to derive the characteristics of successful theories in marketing. Thus, the advice in his current article seeks to move beyond the mechanics of theory development, as we have offered here, to what it takes to make a mechanically accurate theory successful. Three commentators at varying stages in their academic careers, Schlegelmilch ( 2011 ), Brasel ( 2011 ), and Campbell ( 2011 ) have initiated a dialog regarding these insights.

Expanding the theoretical domain within marketing, while also offering an example of middle range theory (see Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan ( 2007 ) for a discussion of middle range theory), is the intent of the article by Karande et al. ( 2011 ). Exploring innovativeness as related to new product introductions, the authors offer insights into what they refer to as an underexplored construct while also introducing new moderators of an existing relationship. In doing so, the authors both clarify and supplement existing theory.

Each of the major articles in this issue makes a significant contribution to theory development in marketing. The commentaries provide additional perspectives on the impact successful theory development in marketing can have on scholars and their research careers.

Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 496–515.

Google Scholar

Bartels, R. T. (1951). Can marketing be a science? Journal of Marketing, 15 (3), 319–328.

Article Google Scholar

Bergman, G. (1957). Philosophy of science . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Brasel, S. A. (2011). Systematic reflection as a learning opportunity. AMS Review, 1 (2).

Brown, L. O. (1948). Toward a profession of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 13 (1), 27–31.

Buzzell, R. D. (1963). Is marketing a science? Harvard Business Review, 41 (1), 32–40.

Campbell, C. (2011). Commentary on ‘developing successful theories in marketing: Insights from resource advantage theory.’ AMS Review , 1 (2).

Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1 . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6), 1281–1303.

Cox, R., & Alderson, W. (1948). Towards a theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 13 (2), 137–152.

Crittenden, V. L., & Peterson, R. A. (2011). Notes on crafting theory. AMS Quarterly, 11 (4), 3.

Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1 (4), 309–344.

Freese, L. (1980). Formal theorizing. Annual Review of Sociology, 6 , 187–212.

Google web search (2011). Theory. Retrieved August 17, 2011 from http://www.google.com/search?&ie=UTF-8&q=define+hello#hl=en&sa=X&ei=kqhLTo3WMcmcgQe0zaxz&ved=0CBgQvwUoAQ&q=define+theory&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fb9a7a497d49df1a&biw=1280&bih=671 .

Hair, J., Money, A., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research methods for business . United Kingdom: Wiley.

Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 59 (6), 1346–1352.

Hunt, S. D. (1983). Marketing theory: The philosophy of marketing science . Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Hunt, S. D. (2011). Developing successful theories in marketing: Insights from resource advantage theory. AMS Review, 1 (2).

Hutchinson, K. D. (1952). Marketing as a science: An appraisal. Journal of Marketing, 16 (3), 286–293.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science . San Francisco: Chandler.

Karande, K., Merchant, A., Sivakumar, K. (2011). Relationships among time orientation, consumer innovativeness, and innovative behavior: The moderating role of product characteristics. AMS Review , 1 (2).

Kilduff, M. (2006). Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2), 252–255.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Liehr, P., & Smith, M. J. (1999). Middle range theory: Spinning research and practice to create knowledge for the new millennium. Advances in Nursing Science, 21 (4), 81–91.

MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (3), 323–326.

Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology . New York: Free Press.

Miller, N. E. (1950). Social science and the art of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 14 (4), 579–584.

Price, L. (2010). Thinking theoretically. Presentation, Academy of Marketing Science annual conference, Portland, Oregon, May 26–29.

Rudner, R. (1966). Philosophy of social science . Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.

Schlegelmilch, B. (2011). Commentary on ‘developing successful theories in marketing: Insights from resource advantage theory.’ AMS Review , 1 (2).

Smith, D. C. (2003). The importance and challenges of being interesting. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (3), 319–322.

Sutherland, J. W. (1975). Systems: Analysis, administration, and architecture . New York: Van Nostrand.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3), 371–384.

Taylor, W. J. (1965). Is marketing a science? revisited. Journal of Marketing, 29 (3), 49–53.

Vaile, R. S. (1949). Towards a theory of marketing—a comment. Journal of Marketing, 13 (4), 520–522.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 486–489.

Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 516–531.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 490–495.

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

Victoria L. Crittenden

Office of the Vice President for Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78713, USA

Robert A. Peterson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria L. Crittenden .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Crittenden, V.L., Peterson, R.A. Ruminations about making a theoretical contribution. AMS Rev 1 , 67–71 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-011-0014-1

Download citation

Published : 13 October 2011

Issue Date : June 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-011-0014-1

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

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

What is Theoretical Contribution in Business Research? How to write theoretical contribution
Sample Research Contribution Statement
How to Write the Best Theoretical Framework for Your Dissertation
120+ Thesis Statement Examples
Theoretical framework of a thesis
Theoretical contribution ph_d

VIDEO

Example of a Thesis Statement #shorts #essay #education #english #learnenglish #writting #writing
Thesis 101: Building a Theoretical Framework
Why Scientific Contributions are more important when you’re studying a PhD
What is a thesis Statement
HOW TO WRITE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH -THESIS-DISSERTATION USING AI WITH APT COMMAND
How to write project chapter III Theoretical Framework

COMMENTS

PDF The Thesis Writing Process and Literature Review
Literature for Theoretical Contribution ! This is your "new thing." ! Your theoretical contribution will be the main lesson readers take away from your thesis. You want to make sure that you've thoroughly read and clearly explained this contribution. ! While it's new to explaining your particular outcome, the ideas
Research Contribution
Here are some examples of research contributions that can be included in a thesis: Development of a new theoretical framework or model. Creation of a novel methodology or research approach. Discovery of new empirical evidence or data. Application of existing theories or methods in a new context. Identification of gaps in the existing literature ...
Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation
Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation. Published on October 14, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on July 18, 2023 by Tegan George. Your theoretical framework defines the key concepts in your research, suggests relationships between them, and discusses relevant theories based on your literature review.
How are theoretical contributions written? Some samples with
Another example of a theoretical contribution taken from the journal of Business ethics (Wang, Zhang, and Jia 2019) first reveals that CSR (corporate social responsibility has been for the first time linked with employees' voices. However, strategic management research or past management studies mostly focus on or connect CSR with company ...
Writing Theoretical Contributions
The tutorial is designed to help research scholars learn how to write theoretical contributions. The tutorial follows a basic and easy-to-understand approach...
How To Write A Theoretical Research Paper
Step 1: Understand Your Research Problem. - Identify gaps in literature. - Engage with theories and recent studies. - Define the core research problem. Step 2: Develop a Robust Theoretical Framework. - Use existing literature to build your framework. - Support your analysis. - Explain relationships among variables. Step 3 ...
How to Write an "Implications of Research" Section
To summarize, remember these key pointers: Implications are the impact of your findings on the field of study. They serve as a reflection of the research you've conducted. They show the specific contributions of your findings and why the audience should care. They can be practical or theoretical. They aren't the same as recommendations.
PDF Chapter 6 Conclusion
contribution of the study is assessed using criteria formulated by Whetten (1989). The final section discusses the limitations of the study and also includes an overview of opportunities for further research. 6.2.Overview of the research In Chapter 1, the thesis examined the nature of the research problem. Developing
What is a Theoretical Framework?
Revised on 10 October 2022. A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work. Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions. In a theoretical framework, you explain the existing theories ...
Contributing to theory: opportunities and challenges
Scholars looking to make original theoretical contributions typically must address at least three challenges: Defining what constitutes an original theoretical contribution, positioning a paper in ongoing theoretical conversations, and critiquing prior published work. Based on experiences at the Academy of Management Review, approaches for addressing these challenges are discussed.
How to make a theoretical contribution to the field?
However, as opposed to the 'gap-spotting' method of a literature review, advancing theory requires challenging and updating the status quo of the knowledge base. I will now outline some of the processes that may serve to stimulate theoretical innovation. 1. Summarise and synthesise. When undertaking a project without empirical data ...
(PDF) Making a meaningful contribution to theory
Purpose - The need to make a "theoretical contribution" is a presumed mandate that permeates any. researcher s career in the Social Sciences, yet all too often this remains a source of ...
PDF Summary of the PhD thesis
Thesis contribution to the current state of knowledge The current PhD thesis aims at researching the implications of the differences in social security and fiscal systems on the welfare of frontier workers from Belgium and Luxembourg. The current state of knowledge in the field of cross-border research consists of multitude
(PDF) What Constitutes a Methodological Contribution?
Abstract. Disciplinary advances are dependent on two intertwined pillars: refinements in theory and refinement in methods. Numerous guides exist for making a theoretical contribution, yet mystery ...
thesis knowhow
The beginning of the thesis usually establishes what the research is going to be about and why it is needed. The potential significance of the contribution is explained. The explanation about why the contribution is needed creates the warrant for the research. The knowledge basis on which the contribution is to be made is outlined for the reader.
What Makes a Process Theoretical Contribution?
The theoretical insights derived from these studies need to rise above the data if they are to be seen as constituting any kind of theoretical contribution, but never so far that data and theory seem to be uncoupled (Langley, 2017). Successful conceptual papers on the other hand generally need to be broader in scope, covering more contingencies ...
Contributions to theory and practice: concepts and examples
The second section of this chapter discusses its contributions to practice. Attention is especially given to the main practical contribution of educational design research: the interventions developed. Thereafter, both the theoretical and practical contributions of four design studies are described, along with the processes that led to them.
PDF HOW TO FRAME YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE? A GUIDE FOR JUNIOR ...
article (2006). For example, she writes that through knowledge we can either build, or falsify a theory. Thus, we use the term knowledge as an umbrella term that covers several types of contributions, and in Section 4, we summarize the different forms of practical and theoretical contributions in the form of a taxonomy.
What is Theoretical Contribution?... preview & related info
Abstract. Theoretical contribution is a process which is based on the theory development and advancement in existing theory with some logics and facts. This study has focused on some theoretical contribution related question and their answers through the narrative review of literature. This study will highlight what is the theory?
Designing theoretical and conceptual framework Contributions to thesis
Figure 2: Example of Theoretical Frame on Nepalese Media Purpose of Conceptual Framework a conceptual frame is the researcher's idea founded on the theoretical framework on how the research problem will have to be explored. it lies on a much broader scale of resolution signifying VoluMe i 34 ReseaRch JouRnal of sociology/anthRopology the ...
How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Conclusion
Step 2: Summarize and reflect on your research. Step 3: Make future recommendations. Step 4: Emphasize your contributions to your field. Step 5: Wrap up your thesis or dissertation. Full conclusion example. Conclusion checklist. Other interesting articles. Frequently asked questions about conclusion sections.
Ruminations about making a theoretical contribution
According to Hunt (), there are three criteria that distinguish a theoretical contribution from a non-theoretical contribution: (1) the systematically related criterion, (2) the lawlike generalizations criterion, and (3) the empirically testable criterion.However, it appears to be too easy for researchers to misinterpret each of these criteria. Thus, Sutton and Staw offered five very specific ...
Theoretical Contributions of Graduate Research: An Investigative Study
Abstract. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of. theoretical contribution present in the dissertations and theses of the. education and business departments of a private ...