Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Social Science and Policy ResearchBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchDiverse Academic Research Areas

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Constructing conceptual frameworks in social science research

Open access
van der Waldt, Gerrit·2020·The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa
DOI 10.4102/td.v16i1.758
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research in the social sciences is concerned with complex social behaviour, group dynamics and unique human settings. Researchers have different patterns of thought and modes of thinking. As such, they often use different words to explain phenomena, thereby causing conceptual confusion. This article explains how conceptual frameworks can help overcome such confusion by serving as visual organising tools and mental maps to direct and guide research. By using a descriptive approach, the article aims firstly to outline the necessity, purpose, nature and scope of conceptual frameworks in social science research and, secondly, to provide a ‘how-to’ guide on the design of such a framework by exploring a practical example. The results illustrate conclusively the significant contribution that conceptual frameworks can and should make in social science research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4102/td.v16i1.758

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Maree, 2012, Complete your thesis or dissertation successfully: Practical guidelines
  2. Ravitch, 2017, Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research
  3. Thomas, 2003, Spotlight on social research
  4. Torraco, 1997, Human resource development handbook: Linking research and practice, 114
  5. Van der Waldt, 2017, African Journal of Public Affairs, 9, 183

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van der Waldt, G.
Venue
The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa
Publisher
AOSIS
Published
2020-02-26
Volume
16
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1817-4434 (ISSN-L)
  • 2415-2005
DOI
10.4102/td.v16i1.758
OpenAlex
W3006823172
Cited by
75
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6
FWCI
17.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Boloka Institutional Repository (North-west University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Diverse Academic Research Areas
Keywords
conceptual framework, conceptual confusion, research design, cognitive maps, social science methodology, conceptual clarity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.