How to Choose and Justify a Theoretical Framework for Your Research

Selecting the right theoretical framework for your research isn’t just about picking a famous theory—it’s about finding the best lens to examine your research question. A well-chosen framework shapes your methodology, analysis, and even how you contribute to knowledge. But how do you make this critical decision? Below is a step-by-step guide to help you navigate the process.

Step 1: Anchor Your Theory to Your Research Aims

Start by breaking down your research goals into key questions or variables. Ask yourself:

• What concepts or phenomena am I studying?

• Which theories directly address these?

For example, if you’re researching team dynamics, Tuckman’s stages of group development might be a natural fit. If you’re exploring power structures in education, Foucault’s discourse analysis or Bourdieu’s theory of practice could be more relevant.

Pro Tip: Revisit your research objectives frequently—your theory should actively help you investigate them, not just sound impressive.

Step 2: Conduct a Focused Literature Review

Before committing to a theory, see how it’s been used in similar studies:

• Which theories keep appearing in top journals on your topic?

• Have scholars modified or combined theories to fill gaps?

This will help you decide whether to:
✔ Use an established theory (reliable but potentially overused)
✔ Combine interdisciplinary theories (innovative but harder to justify)

Step 3: Check Your Epistemological Fit

Your philosophical stance (positivist? interpretivist? critical?) influences which theories make sense. For example:

• A quantitative study on cognitive development might use Piaget’s stages.

• A qualitative study on gender inequality might draw on feminist theory.

Mismatch Alert: Don’t force a theory that clashes with how you view knowledge—your framework should align with your worldview.

Step 4: Compare and Evaluate Theories

Not all theories are equally useful for your study. Create a simple comparison table like the one below; This helps you weigh pros and cons systematically.

Step 5: Assess Practical Usability

A great theory in books might be a nightmare in practice. Ask:

• Can I operationalise this? (Does it translate into measurable variables or observable patterns?)

• Does it account for real-world complexities (e.g., cultural differences)?

• Does this theory say more about the determinants of behaviour or does it help with planning an intervention's behaviour change aspects?

If a theory is too abstract or doesn’t fit your context, keep looking.

Justifying Your Choice: Key Moves

Once you’ve picked a theory, you must defend it in your thesis. Here’s how:

1. Link It to Existing Debates

Show how your framework fills a gap. Example:

"While previous studies used X theory, they overlooked [key factor]. My use of Y theory addresses this by…"

2. Explain How It Guides Your Methods

• Deductive approach? Show how the theory shapes your hypotheses.

• Grounded theory? Justify why you’re avoiding pre-set frameworks.

3. Acknowledge (and Defend Against) Limitations

No theory is perfect. Admit its weaknesses but explain why it’s still the best choice. Example:

"Although Bourdieu’s theory has Western biases, its focus on cultural capital makes it ideal for studying elite networks in my case study."

4. Highlight Novelty (If Combining Theories)

If you’re merging theories, clarify why this combo offers fresh insights:

"By integrating organisational psychology with discourse analysis, I reveal hidden power dynamics in workplace communication."

When (and How) to Use Multiple Theories

Combining theories can add depth, but it requires careful justification. Consider multi-theory approaches if:

1. Your research spans disciplines (e.g., using Bourdieu’s habitus with ecological systems theory for education-environment studies).

2. A single theory is insufficient to explain all dimensions of your problem (e.g., studying inequality with intersectionality + Marxist political economy).

3. You’re critiquing or bridging theories (e.g., testing where structuration theory and actor-network theory converge/diverge in tech studies).

How to do it well:

✔ Be strategic: Link theories to specific parts of your research (e.g., Theory A for data collection, Theory B for analysis).
✔ Show synergy: Explain how they complement each other (e.g., "Feminist standpoint theory highlights lived experience, while Foucault’s power analysis reveals structural constraints").
✔ Avoid Frankenstein frameworks: Don’t force incompatible theories together—ensure shared epistemological roots or clear rationale for tension.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

🚫 Theory overload – Using too many frameworks dilutes your focus. Stick to 1-2 well-justified ones.
🚫 Uncritical adoption – Even “classic” theories (like Maslow’s hierarchy) may need updating for your context.
🚫 Ignoring alternatives – Briefly explain why you didn’t choose competing theories.

Final Thought

Your theoretical framework isn’t just a research checkbox—it’s the backbone of your research. By carefully selecting, applying, and justifying it, you turn a borrowed lens into a tool for original insight.

Further Reading

Online

• An Ultimate Guide to Theoretical Perspectives for Your PhD Thesis - https://phdcentre.com/theoretical-perspectives-phd/ 

• Linking theory with research, choosing a theoretical framework and developing alternative explanations - https://www.raulpacheco.org/2020/12/linking-theory-with-research-choosing-a-theoretical-framework-and-developing-alternative-explanations/ 

• How to Choose a Theoretical Framework or Conceptual Framework For Your Doctoral Dissertation - https://www.thedissertationmentor.com/blog/how-to-choose-a-theoretical-framework-or-conceptual-framework-for-your-doctoral-dissertation 

• Explaining and justifying the use of theory via a sentence skeleton - https://patthomson.net/2014/07/07/explaining-and-justifying-the-use-of-theory-via-a-sentence-skeleton/ 

Peer-Reviewed Articles

• Kwasnicka, D., Dombrowski, S. U., White, M., & Sniehotta, F. (2016). Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 277-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1151372 

• Fried, E. I. (2020). Theories and models: What they are, what they are for, and what they are about. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 336-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1854011 

• Kok, G., Gottlieb ,Nell H., Peters ,Gjalt-Jorn Y., Mullen ,Patricia Dolan, Parcel ,Guy S., Ruiter ,Robert A.C., Fernández ,María E., Markham ,Christine, & and Bartholomew, L. K. (2016). A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: An Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1077155 

• Kok, G. (2018). A practical guide to effective behavior change: How to apply theory- and evidence-based behavior change methods in an intervention. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r78wh 

• Passey, D. (2020). Theories, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, models and constructs: Limiting research outcomes through misconceptions and misunderstandings. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.56810a1a 

Theories of Physical Activity and Behaviour Change

• Rhodes, R. E., McEwan, D., & Rebar, A. L. (2019). Theories of physical activity behaviour change: A history and synthesis of approaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 42: 100-109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.010 

Related Content on this Website

• Groups Research Timeline 

• Social Identity Theory 

• Habit theory 

• Theories of Change in the Promotion of Health