standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Article Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure Yosef Jabareen Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning Technion—Israel Institute of Technology Technion City, Haifa, Israel © 2009 Jabareen. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract alternativesIn this paper the author proposes a new qualitative method for building conceptual frameworks for phenomena that are linked to multidisciplinary bodies of knowledge. First, he redefines the key terms of concept, conceptual framework, and conceptual framework analysis. Concept has some components that define it. alternativesA conceptual framework is defined as a network or a “plane” of linked concepts. transfersalternativesConceptual framework analysis offers a procedure of theorization for building conceptual frameworks based on grounded theory method. The advantages of conceptual framework analysis are its flexibility, its capacity for modification, and its emphasis on understanding instead of prediction. Keywords: conceptual framework, concepts, conceptual framework analysis, qualitative methods, grounded theory, metasynthesis, sustainable development 49
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4) Introduction In our contemporary times, most social phenomena are complex and linked to multiple bodies of knowledge that belong to different disciplines. For this reason, better understanding of such phenomena requires a multidisciplinary approach. Qualitative methods serve as adequate tools for investigating these complex phenomena. research_questionphenomenonsensesDespite the extensive literature that provides logical guidelines for qualitatively deriving theories from text and data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Harris, 2003; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Myers, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), there is a lack of a qualitative systematic method for building conceptual frameworks. This is particularly noticeable in the multidisciplinary literature. Usually, these multidisciplinary phenomena do not even have a skeletal framework, which is defined as characteristics identified from previous inquiry that provide an internal structure that provides a starting point for observations and interview questions, and for analysis. The researcher proceeds by building on these structures or categories, padding them out or “giving them flesh” and organizing the ways they fit together. (Morse, Hupcey, et al., 2002, p. 1) To address this gap, I will focus in this article on the process of building conceptual frameworks for multidisciplinary phenomena linked to different bodies of knowledge. Accordingly, I aim to redefine the term conceptual framework and to examine its underlying philosophy as well as to propose a new process of conceptual analysis for reconstructing a unified theoretical framework from the multidisciplinary literature. I will then apply the proposed method in constructing a conceptual framework for the multidisciplinary phenomenon of sustainable development. I will conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the new conceptual framework. Defining concept and conceptual framework Conceptual frameworks are products of qualitative processes of theorization. To explore the process of building conceptual frameworks, I first define the terms concept and conceptual framework and then outline the processes and procedures of conceptual framework building. transfersWhat is a concept? mechanismsconcepts↗sensesclaim_relationscontent_tags↗When defining of the term concept, I follow and adapt the approach of Deleuze and Guattari in their What Is Philosophy? (1991), in which they hold that “every concept has components and is defined by them” (p. 15). These “components, or what defines the consistency of the concept; its endo-consistency; are distinct, heterogeneous and, yet, not separable” (p. 19). It is a multiplicity, but “not every multiplicity is conceptual,” and “there is no concept with only one component” (p. 15). Using this definition, we can point to a number of aspects of the term concept: 1. Every concept has an irregular contour defined by its components. mechanismsconcepts↗content_tags2. Every concept has a history. 3. Every concept usually contains “bits” or components originating from other concepts. 4. All concepts relate back to other concepts. 5. A concept is always created by something (and cannot be created from nothing). 6. Every concept is “considered as the point of coincidence, condensation, or accumulation of its own components” (p. 20). 7. Every concept must be understood “relative to its own components, to other concepts, to the plane on which it is defined, and to the problem it is supposed to resolve” (p. 21). 50
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4) Redefining conceptual framework object_of_studyconcepts↗sensesclaim_relationscontent_tagscontent_tags↗Current usage of the terms conceptual framework and theoretical framework are vague and imprecise. In this paper I define conceptual framework as a network, or “a plane,” of interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or phenomena. concepts↗The concepts that constitute a conceptual framework support one another, articulate their respective phenomena, and establish a framework-specific philosophy. Conceptual frameworks possess ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions, and each concept within a conceptual framework plays an ontological or epistemological role. The ontological assumptions relate to knowledge of the “way things are,” “the nature of reality,” “real” existence, and “real” action (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The epistemological assumptions relate to “how things really are” and “how things really work” in an assumed reality (p. 108). The methodological assumptions relate to the process of building the conceptual framework and assessing what it can tell us about the “real” world. Features of conceptual frameworks The main features of conceptual frameworks are as follows: 1. mechanismscontent_tagsA conceptual framework is not merely a collection of concepts but, rather, a construct in which each concept plays an integral role. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), a conceptual framework “lays out the key factors, constructs, or variables, and presumes relationships among them” (p. 440). concepts↗sensesconcept_edgescontent_tags↗To discourage loose usage of the term conceptual framework, I propose basing conceptual frameworks not on variable or factors but on concepts alone. When variables or factors are used, I suggest employing the term model. 2. A conceptual framework provides not a causal/analytical setting but, rather, an interpretative approach to social reality. concepts↗concept_edges3. Rather than offering a theoretical explanation, as do quantitative models, conceptual frameworks provide understanding. 4. A conceptual framework provides not knowledge of “hard facts” but, rather, “soft interpretation of intentions” (Levering, 2002, p. 38). limitationsconcepts↗5. Conceptual frameworks are indeterminist in nature and therefore do not enable us to predict an outcome. Levering (2002) has suggested that “the idea that human behavior can be explained and predicted is roughly based on the concept of external factors being caught in an accidental cohesion, and the idea that human actions can be understood, but not predicted, is based on the concept of freedom” (p. 38). 6. Conceptual frameworks can be developed and constructed through a process of qualitative analysis. controlsconcepts↗claim_relations7. The sources of data consist of many discipline-oriented theories that become the empirical data of the conceptual framework analysis. Although conceptual framework analysis generates theories or conceptual frameworks from multidisciplinary bodies of knowledge, metasynthesis, a systematic synthesis of findings across qualitative studies, seeks to generate new interpretations for which there is a consensus within a particular field of study (Jensen, & Allen, 1996; Nelson, 2006; Sandelowski, Docherty, & Emden, 1997). In metasynthesis, which is both hermeneutic and comparative in nature, the researcher aims to expand our interpretation (Sandelowski, 1993) beyond existing qualitative studies from the same discipline (Paterson et al., 2009). Moreover, whereas conceptual analysis aims to produce concepts, metasynthesis produces metaphors, ideas, concepts, and more. Usually, metasynthesis initially selects studies and then identifies key metaphors, ideas, concepts, and relations in each one (Nelson, 2006; see also Campbell et al., 2003; Noblit & Hare, 1988). 51
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4) Methods of building a conceptual framework In this article I suggest that building a conceptual framework from existent multidisciplinary literature is a process of theorization, which uses grounded theory methodology rather than a description of the data and the targeted phenomenon. Strauss and Corbin (1990) identified two main points related to the difference between theory and descriptions: First, theory uses concepts. Similar data are grouped and given conceptual labels. This means placing interpretations on the data. Second, the concepts are related by means of statements of relationships. In description, data may be organized according to themes. These themes may be conceptualizations of data, but are more likely to be precise summaries of words taken directly from the data. There is little, if any, interpretation of data. Nor is there any attempt to relate the themes to form a conceptual scheme. (p. 20) In a broader sense, “qualitative studies ultimately aim to describe and explain a pattern of relationships, which can only be done with a set of conceptually specified categories” (Mishler, 1990, p. 431). Extensively used qualitative methods, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, conceptual analysis, discourse analysis, and semiotic and metaphor analysis, aim, in principle, to assess the occurrence and presence of certain words, phrases, themes, metaphors, or constructs and concepts within a given text. concepts↗These methods are limited for a variety of reasons, “including lack of simple routines, time-consuming data preparation, difficulties in relating textual data to other data, and a lack of a strong theoretical basis” (Carley, 1993, p. 77). They are therefore good for providing description but not for generating theorization. In conceptual analysis, for example, a concept is chosen for examination, and the analysis quantifies its presence and occurrence. On this basis, I hold that the grounded theory method is adequate and extremely useful for building conceptual frameworks from multidisciplinary texts. Grounded theory is adequate for conceptual framework building due also to its primary characteristics. It is a specific paradigm of inquiry that includes a number of distinct features and involves the use of coding paradigms to ensure conceptual development (Strauss, 1987). It is a research method aimed at the discovery of theory from systematically obtained data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987) and “an inductive, theory discovery methodology” (Martin & Turner, 1986, p. 141), which facilitates “the generation of theories of process, sequence, and change pertaining to organizations, positions, and social interaction” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 114). Grounded theory perspective is one of the most widely used qualitative interpretive frameworks in the social sciences today because of its use of methods that conform to the “good science” model (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Harris, 2003). Orlikowski (1993) has suggested that grounded theory is contextual, procedural, and inductive. Accordingly, it builds a “context-based, process-oriented description and explanation of the phenomenon, rather than an objective, static description expressed strictly in terms of causality” (Andersson, Hallberg, & Timpka, 2003, p. 50; see also Orlikowski, 1993). Conceptual framework analysis technique: Data, process, and procedure mechanismsclaim_relationsIn the existing techniques of conceptual analysis, “a concept is chosen for examination, and the analysis involves, among other things, quantifying and tallying its presence” (Palmquist, Carley, & Dale, 1997; see also Finney & Corbett, 2007). The focus is on examining the occurrence of 52
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4) selected implicit and explicit terms within texts. Moreover, Carley (1993) has suggested that “the focus on concepts implicit to traditional content analysis often results in an overestimation of the similarity of texts because meaning is neglected” (p. 77). claim_typeconcepts↗sensescontent_tags↗Yet, the existing conceptual analysis technique is inadequate for theorizing the concepts that emerge from the text. Therefore, in this article I propose a new technique, which I refer to as conceptual framework analysis, as a grounded theory technique, or tactic, that aims to generate, identify, and trace a phenomenon’s major concepts, which together constitute its theoretical framework. I also aims to develop concepts—each of which has its own attributes, characteristics, assumptions, limitations, distinct perspectives, and specific function within the conceptual framework—that shed more light on the phenomenon represented by the concepts themselves (see Boyatzis, 1998; Jabareen, 2008; Morse & Mitcham, 2002). At the heart of this methodology lies the interplay among induction, derivation of concepts from data, and deduction aimed at hypothesizing the relationship between concepts (Patton, 2002). The data of conceptual framework analysis The texts selected for conceptual framework analysis should effectively represent the relevant social, cultural, political, and environmental phenomenon or social behavior, and the multidisciplinary literature that focuses on the phenomenon under study. An important point is that they should also represent practices that are related to the phenomenon. The data should therefore come from a variety of types, such as books, articles, newspapers, essays, interviews, and practices. Most texts and much data represent theories that belong to specific disciplines. When we embark on a multidisciplinary approach, these discipline-oriented theories become the empirical data of the conceptual framework analysis. The process of conceptual framework analysis The proposed process is iterative, “requiring a steady movement between concept and data, as well as comparative, requiring a constant comparison across types of evidence to control the conceptual level and scope of the emerging theory” (Orlikowski, 1993, p. 310, emphasis added). The technique, as required by grounded theory, suggests a continuous interplay between data collection and analysis (Myers, 2009). The procedure of conceptual framework analysis The proposed methodology is composed of the following main phases. Phase 1: Mapping the selected data sources The first task is to map the spectrum of multidisciplinary literature regarding the phenomenon in question. This process includes identifying text types and other sources of data, such as existing empirical data and practices. It must begin with an extensive review of the multidisciplinary texts, and it is also recommended to undertake initial interviews with practitioners, specialists, and scholars from various disciplines whose work focuses on the targeted phenomenon. Data collection should be a comprehensive and complete “fishing trip” or “scoping” (Morse & Richards, 2002), and should facilitate holistic mapping and complete data collection to ensure validity (Morse & Mitcham, 2002). 53
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4) Phase 2: Extensive reading and categorizing of the selected data The aim in this phase is to read the selected data and categorize it both by discipline and by a scale of importance and representative power within each discipline. This process maximizes the effectiveness of our inquiry and ensures effective representation of each discipline. Phase 3: Identifying and naming concepts mechanismscontrolscontent_tagsThe aim in this phase is to read and reread the selected data and “discover” concepts (Glaser & Strauss. 1967; Strauss & Corbin. 1990). Its result is a list of numerous competing and sometimes contradictory concepts. Generally, this method allows concepts to emerge from the literature. Indeed, Morse, Hupcey, et al. (2002) have suggested that “qualitative inquiry that commences with the concept, rather than the phenomenon itself, is subject to violating the tenet of induction, thus is exposed to particular threats of invalidity” (p. 68). Phase 4: Deconstructing and categorizing the concepts method↗mechanismscontent_tagsThe aim of this phase is to deconstruct each concept; to identify its main attributes, characteristics, assumptions, and role; and, subsequently, to organize and categorize the concepts according to their features and ontological, epistemological, and methodological role. The result of this phase is a table that includes four columns. The first includes the names of the concepts; the second includes a description of each concept; the third categorizes each concept according to its ontological, epistemological, or methodological role; and the fourth presents the references for each concept. Phase 5: Integrating concepts limitationsThe aim in this phase is to integrate and group together concepts that have similarities to one new concept. This phase reduces the number of concepts drastically and allows us to manipulate to a reasonable number of concepts. Phase 6: Synthesis, resynthesis, and making it all make sense The aim in this phase is to synthesize concepts into a theoretical framework. The researcher must be open, tolerant, and flexible with the theorization process and the emerging new theory. This process is iterative and includes repetitive synthesis and resynthesis until the researcher recognizes a general theoretical framework that makes sense. Researchers should know how to build their conceptual frameworks. As Miles and Huberman (1994) have suggested, researchers who use qualitative methods “need to know how they are constructing ‘theory’ as analysis proceeds, because that construction will . . . inevitably influence and constrain data collection, data reduction, and the drawing and verification of conclusions” (p. 434). Phase 7: Validating the conceptual framework The aim in this phase is to validate the conceptual framework. mechanismslimitationscontrolscontent_tags↗The question is whether the proposed framework and its concepts make sense not only to the researcher but also to other scholars and practitioners. Does the framework present a reasonable theory for scholars studying the phenomenon from different disciplines? Validating a theoretical framework is a process that starts with the researcher, who then seeks validation among “outsiders.” Presenting an evolving theory at a conference, a seminar, or some other type of academic framework provides an excellent opportunity for researchers to discuss and receive feedback. 54
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4) Phase 8: Rethinking the conceptual framework mechanismscontent_tagsA theory or a theoretical framework representing a multidisciplinary phenomenon will always be dynamic and may be revised according to new insights, comments, literature, and so on. As the framework is multidisciplinary, the theory should make sense for those disciplines and enlarge their theoretical perspective on the specific phenomenon in question. Case study: The phenomenon of sustainable development This case study focuses on the multidisciplinary phenomenon of sustainable development. Sustainable development has been addressed in a large number of disciplines, including geography, economics, ethics, law, sociology, anthropology, urban studies, planning, design, and architecture. A review of the multidisciplinary literature on sustainable development (SD) reveals a lack of a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding the phenomenon and its complexities (Jabareen, 2004, 2006, 2008). Beatley and Manning (1998) hold that although sustainability is a good thing, it still requires definition and elaboration. limitationsconcepts↗Some have argued that the existing definitions of sustainable development are vague (Gow, 1992; Mozaffar, 2001), devoid of operative definitions (Villanueva, 1997), and fraught with contradictions (Redclift, 1987), and that the topic itself is confused (Berke & Conroy, 2000; Redclift, 1994). Others have pointed out that authors on the subject employ unclear symbolic rhetoric (Andrews, 1997; Solow, 1992) and are not even in agreement on what it is that needs to be sustained (Redclift, 1993; Sachs, 1999; Satterthwaite, 1996). Applying the process of a conceptual framework analysis, described above, to the phenomenon of sustainable development not only provides us with a case study of theoretical framework building but also sheds new light on the phenomenon of sustainable development itself. Findings: Concepts of sustainability content_tagsThe conceptual analysis undertaken along the lines laid down in the first part of this article identified seven distinct concepts that make up the theoretical world of sustainability (Jabareen, 2008). Concept 1: Ethical paradox This concept relates to the apparent contradiction between development, which requires environmental modification and intervention in nature and exhausts natural resources, and sustainability, which is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained for an indefinite period. The most frequently used definition of SD appears in the Brundtland report (World Commission for Environment and Development [WCED], 1987) and reads as follows: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 46). Thus, the role of SD is to mitigate this paradox and to provide a rapprochement between ecological (sustainability) and economic (development) interests to cope with the ecological crisis without affecting existing economic growth (Baeten, 2000; Sachs, 1993). Concept 2: Natural capital stock This concept relates to the natural resource assets involved with development. Natural capital stock includes all environmental and natural resource assets (Pearce, Barbier, & Markandya, 55
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4) 1990). Sustainability requires that the stock of natural capital remain constant and not decrease in the long run in order not to endanger the opportunities of future generations to generate wealth and well-being (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997; England, 1998; Geldrop & Withagen, 2000). Concept 3: Equity This concept relates to the social aspects of SD. Equity is a broad term that encompasses environmental, social, and economic justice; social equity; equal rights for development; equal economic distribution; freedom; democracy; public participation; and empowerment. Sustainability can be achieved through an effective balancing of social, environmental, and economic objectives and through a more equitable distribution of resources (Agyeman, Bullard, & Evans, 2002; Berke & Kartez, 1995; Healey & Shaw, 1993; Meadows, Meadows, & Randers, 1992; Robinson & Tinker, 1998; Scruggs, 1993; Stymne & Jackson, 2000). Moreover, sustainability is also a matter of distributional equity, or intragenerational and intergenerational equity, emphasizing a need for present and future generations to share the capacity for well-being (Boyce, Klemer, Templet, & Willis, 1999; Solow, 1991; Stymne & Jackson, 2000). Concept 4: Eco-form This concept relates to the form and design of various human communities, urban spaces, and buildings that is most desirable from an ecological perspective (Jabareen, 2006, 2008). A key strand of research into sustainability strategies has focused on ecological design and on defining the urban forms that enable built environments and buildings to function in more sustainable ways than at present. This concept suggests that better design contributes both to reducing air pollution and increasing energy efficiency. (e.g., Edwards, 1999; Haughton, 1999). Concept 5: Integrative management This concept represents the integrative strategy of sustainable development, which suggests integrating social, economic, and environmental concerns in planning and management to achieve sustainability (Commission on Sustainable Development, 2001; Council of Europe, 1993; Dodds, 2000; Robinson & Tinker, 1998; WCED, 1987). Concept 6: Utopianism The utopian concept envisages a sustainable human society and habitat based primarily on sustainable development. Utopias related to SD often envision a perfect society in which justice prevails, people are content and live and flourish in harmony with nature, and life moves along smoothly without abuses and shortages. The power of utopian thinking, which is properly conceived of as a vision of a new society that questions all the presuppositions of present-day society, is its inherent ability to see the future in terms of radical new forms and values (e.g., Dobson, 1990; de Geus, 1999). Concept 7: Global political agenda This concept represents a new global, national boundary that transcends the practical and theoretical implications of the discourse of SD and that has become a central element of environmental policies around the globe (Dodds, 2000). Since the Rio Summit in 1992, sustainability has increasingly been conceived of as a challenge for global management to organize intelligent, scientific, and instrumental management of the earth. This concept, however, reflects deep disputes between northern and southern countries (e.g. Jabareen, 2008; World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002). 56
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4)
Table 1. Conceptual framework of sustainable development and selected sources of data
The Concept
Inquiry Character
Selected Sources of Data
Ethical paradox Natural capital stock Eco-form Utopianism
Ontological concept Epistemological concept Methodological concept Methodological concept
Philosophy and ethics Ecology, environmental studies Design, architecture, planning, and urban studies Literature
Global political agenda Integrative management Equity
Methodological concept Methodological concept Methodological concept
Civil society, political sciences Management and urban planning studies Ecology, environmental studies, ethnic studies, and feminist and gender studies
The conceptual framework of sustainable development Each of the seven concepts identified above as collectively constituting the theoretical framework of sustainable development represents distinctive aspects of the theoretical foundations of sustainability. As shown in Figure 1, these concepts have interwoven relationships with one another. The concept of ethical paradox is the framework’s ontological basis and sits at its core, articulating the paradox between sustainability and development in terms of ethics. In other words, the epistemological foundation of the theoretical framework of sustainable development is based on the unresolved and fluid paradox of sustainability, which as such can simultaneously inhabit different and contradictory environmental ideologies and practices. Consequently, SD tolerates diverse interpretations and practices ranging from “light ecology,” which allows intensive intervention in nature, and “deep ecology,” which allows only minor intervention. Concluding thoughts In this article I have proposed a new qualitative method for building conceptual frameworks to better understand phenomenon linked to multiple bodies of knowledge situated in multiple disciplines. First, it includes a redefinition of concept, conceptual framework, and conceptual framework analysis. contributionConcept has some components that define it. All concepts are characterized by a number of features: an irregular contour defined by its components; a history, some “bits” or components that come from other concepts, and elements that can be traced back to other concepts. Conceptual framework is defined as a network, or “plane,” of linked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon. Each concept of a conceptual framework plays an ontological or epistemological role in the framework. Conceptual frameworks are not merely collections of concepts but, rather, constructs in which each concept plays an integral role. They provide not a causal/analytical setting but, rather, an interpretative approach to social reality. Finally, they are not determinist frameworks.
As we have seen, conceptual frameworks can be developed through an eight-phase qualitative process of analysis, referred to here as conceptual framework analysis. As building a conceptual framework is a process of theorization, it uses grounded theory method rather than a description of the data and the targeted phenomenon. The sources of data are theories generated by theories in multiple disciplines, which become the empirical data of the conceptual framework analysis carried out in the article. The data themselves are composed of various texts addressing the social, cultural, political, or environmental phenomenon in question and the multidisciplinary literature on the subject.
57
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4)
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of sustainable development
Equity: Epistemological concept
Natural capital stock: Epistemological concept
Global agenda: Epistemological concept
Ethical paradox: Ontological concept
Integrative management: Epistemological concept
Eco-form: Epistemological concept
Utopia: Epistemological concept
“Eco-nomics”: Epistemological concept Source: Modified from Jabareen (2006). limitationscontent_tagsAlthough conceptual framework analysis certainly has its limitations - such as the fact that different researchers may have different conceptions of the same phenomenon and may create different “planes” and conceptual frameworks, and possible difficulties finding suitable texts and data - it also offers some important advantages. Flexibility. It is based on flexible conceptual terms rather than rigid theoretical variables and causal relations. Capacity for modification. Conceptual frameworks can be reconceptualized and modified according to the evolution of the phenomenon in question or as a result of new data and texts that were not available at the time the framework was first developed. This is consistent with the basic premise that social phenomena are evolutionary and not static. Understanding. Conceptual frameworks aim to help us understand phenomena rather than to predict them.
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 2 of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | the conceptual framework itself - what a concept is, what a network of concepts is, and how one is built from a multidisciplinary literature | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how can a conceptual framework for a multidisciplinary phenomenon be built systematically, when the terms 'conceptual framework' and 'theoretical framework' are themselves used vaguely | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | redefines 'concept', 'conceptual framework' and 'conceptual framework analysis', and gives an eight-phase procedure for building a network of concepts out of a multidisciplinary literature | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | a term used constantly and defined loosely - 'conceptual framework' and 'theoretical framework' in current usage - with no systematic method for producing the thing it names | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | conceptual-analysis also in: conceptual-analysis | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | A CONCEPT IS DEFINED BY ITS COMPONENTS, AND CARRIES PIECES OF OTHER CONCEPTS. `Every concept usually contains BITS OR COMPONENTS ORIGINATING FROM OTHER CONCEPTS` and `All concepts relate back to other concepts` | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and it is historical: `Every concept has a history` - which is why a concept must be understood `relative to its own components, to other concepts, to the plane on which it is defined, and to the problem it is supposed to resolve` | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | A FRAMEWORK IS A NETWORK, NOT A PILE. `A conceptual framework is not merely a collection of concepts but, rather, a construct in which each concept plays an integral role`, and each plays `an ontological or epistemological role` | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE PROCEDURE'S OUTPUT IS A TAGGED RECORD WITH ITS SOURCES. Phase 4 produces `a table that includes four columns. The first includes the names of the concepts; the second includes a description of each concept; the third categorizes each concept according to its ontological, epistemological, or methodological role; and the fourth presents the references for each concept` | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the phase before it expects disagreement rather than avoiding it: the result of identifying and naming concepts is `a list of numerous competing and sometimes contradictory concepts` | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | COUNTING A TERM IS NOT THEORIZING WITH IT. Existing conceptual analysis chooses a concept and `the analysis involves, among other things, quantifying and tallying its presence` - and Carley: `the focus on concepts implicit to traditional content analysis often results in an overestimation of the similarity of texts because meaning is neglected` | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | THE FRAMEWORK IS EXPECTED TO CHANGE, AND THAT IS A PROPERTY NOT A DEFECT - `A theory or a theoretical framework representing a multidisciplinary phenomenon will always be dynamic and may be revised according to new insights, comments, literature` | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and validation is social rather than statistical: `Validating a theoretical framework is a process that STARTS WITH THE RESEARCHER, WHO THEN SEEKS VALIDATION AMONG OUTSIDERS` | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE PAPER NAMES THIS PROJECT'S OWN INTER-RATER RISK AS ITS OWN LIMITATION - `DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS MAY HAVE DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF THE SAME PHENOMENON AND MAY CREATE DIFFERENT PLANES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS`, along with `possible difficulties finding suitable texts and data` | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the method declares that it cannot predict: `Conceptual frameworks are indeterminist in nature and therefore do not enable us to predict an outcome` - stated as a design choice, which also means no failed prediction can falsify one | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the validation criterion is whether it makes sense to other scholars - `The question is whether the proposed framework and its concepts make sense not only to the researcher but also to other scholars and practitioners`, with a conference presentation named as the venue. There is no measure and no threshold | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the integration phase reduces the concept count by judgement - `integrate and group together concepts that have similarities to one new concept. This phase reduces the number of concepts drastically and allows us to manipulate to a reasonable number` - with `reasonable` undefined | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the demonstration case is one the paper itself calls unsettled - existing definitions of sustainable development are `vague`, `devoid of operative definitions`, `fraught with contradictions`, and authors `are not even in agreement on what it is that needs to be sustained` | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the definition of what a concept IS is taken from philosophy and adapted for social-science methodology: a concept has components and is defined by them | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | conceptual framework analysis is built as a procedure of theorization on the grounded theory method | transfers[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | requiring the framework to be validated by outsiders - scholars and practitioners from the disciplines it draws on, not only by its author eliminates: a framework that coheres only for the person who built it; the multidisciplinary claim is exactly the one its author cannot check alone · outcome: partial | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | letting the concepts emerge from the literature rather than starting from a chosen concept - Phase 3 reads and rereads before naming eliminates: the inductive tenet being violated by beginning with the concept rather than the phenomenon, which Morse et al. name as a threat to validity · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | categorising each concept by discipline and by representative power within its discipline before the concepts are integrated eliminates: one discipline's vocabulary dominating a framework that claims to span several - the mapping phase is explicitly a 'fishing trip' across all of them · outcome: held | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | concept also in: concept | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conceptual framework also in: conceptual framework | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conceptual framework analysis also in: conceptual framework analysis | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | components also in: components | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | model also in: model | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quantitative models also in: quantitative models | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | description also in: description | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | metasynthesis also in: metasynthesis | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ontological also in: ontological | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | indeterminist also in: indeterminist | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sustainable development also in: sustainable development | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | `concept` (Deleuze and Guattari, adapted) - a multiplicity whose components are `distinct, heterogeneous and, yet, not separable`, and `there is no concept with only one component` | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `conceptual framework` (this paper) - `a network, or a plane, of interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon` | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `conceptual framework` vs `model` - the first is built on concepts, the second on variables or factors; the paper stipulates the split to stop loose usage | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `conceptual framework analysis` - a grounded-theory technique that `aims to generate, identify, and trace a phenomenon's major concepts` | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `skeletal framework` (Morse et al.) - characteristics from previous inquiry giving an internal structure and a starting point, which multidisciplinary phenomena usually do not even have | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: method a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: method — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.claim_type | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | method: conceptual-analysis a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: conceptual-analysis — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.method | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | phenomenon: what a conceptual framework is and how one can be built from multidisciplinary bodies of knowledge a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: a term used constantly and defined loosely - 'conceptual framework' and 'theoretical framework' in current usage - with — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.phenomenon | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the current usage of 'conceptual framework' and 'theoretical framework', which the paper calls vague and imprecise | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → existing conceptual analysis, which quantifies a chosen concept's presence and cannot theorise the concepts that emerge from the text | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → grounded theory method, applied here to a multidisciplinary literature in which discipline-oriented theories become the empirical data | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Deleuze and Guattari's account of the concept in 'What Is Philosophy?', adapted as the definition of what a tagged concept has to be | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | conceptual framework —distinct-from→ model the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'To discourage loose usage of the term conceptual framework, I propose basing conceptual frameworks not on variable or factors but on concepts alone. When variables or factors are used, I suggest employing the term model.' A stipulative definition offered as a remedy for observed drift - and the paper says which drift. · the relation stated: the paper reserves one word for a construct built on concepts and the other for one built on variables or factors - a naming rule proposed precisely to stop the first term being used loosely also in: conceptual framework · model | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | conceptual framework —contrasted-with→ quantitative models the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'Rather than offering a theoretical explanation, as do quantitative models, conceptual frameworks provide understanding.' Paired with the paper's own 'Conceptual frameworks are indeterminist in nature and therefore do not enable us to predict an outcome' - the inability is declared, not conceded. ENDPOINT NOTE, 2026-08-24 the project: an internal tool flags this edge's 'from' as IN THE SPAN ONLY AS A SUBSTRING and predicts the gate will reject it. THE GATE ACCEPTS IT. Checked rather than assumed: the paper's surface form here is the PLURAL 'conceptual frameworks' and the declared concept is the singular, so the two checks disagree about whether a regular trailing-s inflection attests a term. That is an earlier note of ours, still open - and it is now visible as a DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO CHECKS rather than as a question about one. The edge stands because the gate is the authority and because the plural is the paper's own word for the concept. · the relation stated: a quantitative model offers theoretical explanation and a conceptual framework offers understanding - the difference is in what each is for, not in rigour also in: conceptual framework · quantitative models | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | current usage of 'conceptual framework' and 'theoretical framework' is vague and imprecise | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | every concept has a history, contains components from other concepts, and relates back to other concepts | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a conceptual framework is not merely a collection of concepts but a construct in which each concept plays an integral role | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the phase produces a four-column table: concept names, descriptions, ontological/epistemological/methodological role, and references | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE METHOD EXPECTS CONTRADICTION AND KEEPS IT - identifying and naming concepts produces `a list of numerous competing and sometimes contradictory concepts`, and only a later phase integrates them | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND THE PAPER NAMES THE INTER-RATER PROBLEM AS ITS OWN LIMITATION - `different researchers may have different conceptions of the same phenomenon and may create DIFFERENT PLANES and conceptual frameworks` | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | concept also in: concept | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | conceptual framework also in: conceptual framework | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | conceptual framework analysis also in: conceptual framework analysis | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | model also in: model | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | phases in the procedure value source note: THE VALUE DRAWS ON THE PAPER BEYOND THIS QUOTE: it counts the paper's phases ('Phase 8: Rethinking the conceptual framework'); this quote is the text of the last one. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | concepts in the sustainable development framework | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Validation is `whether the proposed framework and its concepts make sense not only to the researcher but also to other scholars`, sought by presenting at a conference or seminar. There is no coefficient, no threshold and no inter-rater statistic anywhere in the procedure - and the paper's own limitation is that different researchers will build different planes. The two sentences belong together. | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.