The document discusses conceptual frameworks, defining them as written or visual presentations that explain key factors and relationships in a study. It notes conceptual frameworks appear early in research, guiding literature reviews and questions. The document provides examples of conceptual framework structures like flow charts and mind maps. It outlines benefits like explaining findings but notes frameworks can unintentionally bias research if not revisited. Overall, conceptual frameworks encapsulate a study's focus and link literature to methods and results.

1. Conceptual Framework
Professor Roger Vaughan
May 29th 2008
www.bournemouth.ac.uk

2. The structure of the presentation
• The definition of a conceptual framework.
• Where the conceptual framework appears in the research.
• Developing the conceptual framework.
• The presentation of the conceptual framework.
• The good and bad of conceptual frameworks.
• Conclusion.

3. The definition of a conceptual
framework

4. What is a conceptual framework?
• A written or visual presentation that:
– “explains either graphically, or in narrative form, the main things
to be studied – the key factors, concepts or variables -
– and the presumed relationship among them”.
(Miles and Huberman, 1994, P18)

5. Where the conceptual framework
appears in the research

6. Where does the conceptual
framework fit?
• Preparing a conceptual framework can be likened to planning a
holiday.
• The purpose of the pre-planning of the holiday is to:
– Know how to get to, and return from, your holiday destination.
– Know what to do when you are at the destination.
– To be better prepared, and able to make the most of your holiday,
because you can be guided by your previous experiences and by
any information provided by others.
• But is this pre-planning metaphor applicable to both quantitative and
qualitative research in terms of the conceptual framework and the
research process?

7. Where does the conceptual
framework fit in - quantitative?
• Research problem: The issue of theoretical or practical interest.
• Paradigm: The philosophical assumptions about the
nature of the world and how we understand
it - positivism.
• Aims and objectives: What we want to know and how the answer
may be built up.
A critical and evaluative review of the
• Literature review: thoughts and experiences of others.
Provides the structure/content for the whole
• Conceptual framework: study based on literature and personal
experience
Specific questions that require answers.
• Research questions: Methodology, methods and analysis.
• Data collection and analysis: Making sense of the results.
• Interpretation of the results: Revisit conceptual framework.
•

8. Where does the conceptual
framework fit in - qualitative?
• Research problem: The issue of theoretical or practical interest.
• Paradigm: The philosophical assumptions about the
nature of the world and how we understand
it – e.g. interpretivism.
• Aims and objectives: What we want to know and how the answer
may be built up.
A critical and evaluative review of the
• Literature review: thoughts and experiences of others.
Specific questions that require answers.
• Research questions:
Methodology, methods and analysis.
• Data collection and analysis:
• Conceptual framework develops as
Interpretation of the results:
participants’ views and issues are gathered
and analysed.
Revisit conceptual framework.
• Evaluation of the research:

9. Qualitative research - the position
of the conceptual framework
• Normally qualitative work is described as starting from an inductive
position, seeking to build up theory, with the conceptual framework
being ‘emergent’, because existing literature/theories might mislead.
• However, Miles and Huberman (1994) note that:
– Researchers generally have some idea of what will feature in the
study, a tentative rudimentary conceptual framework, and it is
better to have some idea of what you are looking for/at even if that
idea changes over time. This is particularly true for inexperienced
and/or time constrained researchers.
– Qualitative research can also be confirmatory. Yin (1994), for
example, identified pattern matching and explanation building.
Pattern matching starts with existing theory and tests its adequacy
in terms of explaining the findings. Explanation building starts with
theory and then builds an explanation while collecting and
analysing data.

10. Developing the conceptual
framework

11. What inputs go into developing a
conceptual framework?
• Experiential knowledge of student and supervisor:
– Technical knowledge.
– Research background.
– Personal experience.
– Data (particularly for qualitative).
• Literature review:
– Prior ‘related’ theory – concepts and relationships that are used
to represent the world, what is happening and why.
– Prior ‘related’ research – how people have tackled ‘similar’
problems and what they have learned.
– Other theory and research - approaches, lines of investigation
and theory that are not obviously relevant/previously used.

12. How might a conceptual
framework be developed?
• The pieces of the conceptual framework are borrowed but the
researcher provides the structure. To develop the structure you
could:
– Identify the key words used in the subject area of your study.
– Draw out the key things within something you have already
written about the subject area – literature review.
– Take one key concept, idea or term at a time and brainstorm all
the other things that might be related and then go back and
select those that seem most relevant.
• Whichever is used it will take time and a number of iterations and
the focus is both on the content and the inter-relationships.

13. The presentation of the conceptual
framework

14. What general forms might a
conceptual framework take?
• Process frameworks
– Set out the stages through which an action moves from initiation
to conclusion. These relate to the ‘how?’ question.
• Content frameworks
– Set out the variables, and possibly the relationship (with relative
strengths) between them, that together answer the ‘why?’
question.

15. What specific forms might a
conceptual framework take?
• The possibilities include:
– Flow charts.
– Tree diagrams.
– Shape based diagrams – triangles, concentric circles,
overlapping circles.
– Mind maps.
– Soft systems.

16. A ‘flow chart’ of innovation decision
making
PRIOR CONDITIONS
1. Previous practice
2. Felt needs/problems
3. Innovativeness
4. Norms of the social COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
system
1. KNOWLEDGE 2. PERSUASION 3. DECISION 4. IMPLEMENTATION 5. CONFIRMATION
Observations of the Perceived characteristics
decision making unit of innovation
1. Adoption Confirmed Adoption
1. Socio-economic 1. Relative advantage
Later Adoption
characteristics
2. Compatibility
Discontinuance
2. Personality
3. Complexity 2. Rejection
variables Continued Rejection
4. Trialability
3. Communication
behaviour 5. Observability
Rogers 2003

17. A ‘tree chart’ of changing
consumer behaviour
Customers
Changing Product
customers ex pectations
Experience Values Lifestyles Demographics Quality Price Purchasing Information
Range Knowledge Priorities Health Access
Physical Service
Currency
Value Image
Loss of
Individuality Expectations Variety
loyalty
Age
composition
Ease Flexibility Security

18. A ‘triangle’ of needs
Self actualisation
Esteem
Affiliation
Security
Physiological
Maslow 1954

19. A mind map of cruise travel and
impacts
T ra v e l
W hy not
m a s s to u r is m
S O C IA L C O N T IN G E N C Y
THEO RY
W h o g e ts to g o ?
H e g e m o n y c la s s A d v a n ta g e s D is a d v a n ta g e s
Typ e s o f In d iv id u a l n o t p a r t o f m a s s
to u r is ts /
tr a v e lle r s
P O S T S T R U C T U R A L IS M
Typ e s o f F o u c a u lt - fr e e d o m a n d c o n tr o l C r u is e r im p a c ts
to u r is m K n o w le d g e - p o w e r s
P O S T M O D E R N IS M
B a u d s ila r d - H y p e s r e a lit y
C u ltu r e /
G o ffm a n - fro n ts ta g e /
p la c e s
B a c k s ta g e a u th e n tic ity
E n v iro n m e n t
P e o p le
A r e c r u is e r s
to u r is ts o r n o t?
W h a t ty p e o f im p a c t
and
w h a t t y p e o f to u r is t?
Jennings 2001

20. Soft systems framework of tourism
business activity
2 3
1 Process Institutional Business
Environment Environment
Content
4 5
6 Output Behaviour Motivation
7 Outcome

21. The good and bad of conceptual
frameworks

22. Why are conceptual frameworks
useful?
• Conceptual frameworks provide researchers with:
– The ability to move beyond descriptions of ‘what’ to explanations
of ‘why’ and ‘how’.
– A means of setting out an explanation set that might be used to
define and make sense of the data that flow from the research
question.
– An filtering tool for selecting appropriate research questions and
related data collection methods.
– A reference point/structure for the discussion of the literature,
methodology and results.
– The boundaries of the work.

23. What are the limitations of a
conceptual framework?
• Conceptual frameworks, however, also have problems in that the
framework:
– Is influenced by the experience and knowledge of the individual
– initial bias.
– Once developed will influence the researcher’s thinking and may
result in some things being given prominence and others being
ignored – ongoing bias.
• The solution is to revisit the conceptual framework, particularly at the
end when evaluating your work.

24. Conclusion

25. The overall contribution of the
conceptual framework
• The conceptual framework encapsulates the research as it:
– Sets out the focus and content.
– Acts as the link between the literature, the methodology and the
results (regardless of when in the PhD process it is produced).
• Thus it can be/will be the focus/starting point of the evaluation of
originality in terms of the criteria outlined by Hart (1998). For example:
– Is what has been focussed on entirely new?
– Is the way the subject been investigated different to the ‘normal’
approaches?
– Has new light been shed on previously explored issues?

26. The End

27. References

28. References
• Hart C. (1998): Doing a Literature Review.” London, Sage.
• Jennings G. (2001): Tourism Research. Australia, John Wiley and
Sons.
• Maslow A (1954): “Motivation and Personality.” New York: Harper.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994): “Qualitative Data Analysis:
An Expanded Sourcebook” (2nd edition). Beverley Hills, Sage.
• Rogers, E.M. (2003): “Diffusion of Innovations.” 5th Edition. London,
Simon and Schuster.
• Smyth R. (2004): “Exploring the Usefulness of a Conceptual
Framework as a Research Tool: A Researcher's Reflections.” Issues
In Educational Research, Volume 14.
• Yin R. K. (1994): “Case Study Research: Design and Methods.” (2 nd
edition) California, Sage.