(PDF) What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w ARTICLES WITH ATTITUDE What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use Stefan Partelow1,2  Accepted: 29 March 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Many frameworks exist across the sciences and science-policy interface, but it is not always clear how they are developed or can be applied. It is also often vague how new or existing frameworks are positioned in a theory of science to advance a specific theory or paradigm. This article examines these questions and positions the role of frameworks as integral but often vague scientific tools, highlighting benefits and critiques. While frameworks can be useful for synthesizing and communicat- ing core concepts in a field, they often lack transparency in how they were developed and how they can be applied. Positioning frameworks within a theory of science can aid in knowing the purpose and value of framework use. This article provides a meta-framework for visualizing and engaging the four mediating processes for framework development and application: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) application, and (4) hypothesizing. Guiding points for scholars and policymakers using or developing frameworks in their research are provided in closing. Keywords  Paradigm · Theory of science · Methodology · Social science · Frameworks The development of ‘frameworks’ is at present prob- systems research in tangent with the associated disciplines ably the most common strategy in the field of natu- of those fields (Binder et al. 2013; Pulver et al. 2018; Cold- ral resources management to achieve integration and ing and Barthel 2019). Many well-established frameworks interdisciplinarity. are regularly applied to collect new data or to structure entire research programs such as the Ecosystem Services (ES) Mollinga, 2008 framework (Potschin-Young et al. 2018), the Social-Eco- logical Systems Framework (SESF) (McGinnis and Ostrom …it is not clear what the role of a scientific framework 2014a), Earth Systems Governance (ESG) (Biermann et al. should be, and relatedly, what makes for a successful 2010), the Driver-Impact-Pressure-State-Response (DIPSR) scientific framework. framework, and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) frame- Ban and Cox, 2017 work. Frameworks are also put forth by major scientific organizing bodies to steer scientific and policy agendas at regional and global levels such as the Intergovernmental Introduction Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al. 2015) and the Global Sus- Frameworks are important research tools across nearly all tainable Development Report’s transformational levers and fields of science. They are critically important for structuring fields (UN 2019). empirical inquiry and theoretical development in the envi- Despite the countless frameworks, it is not always clear ronmental social sciences, governance research and practice, how a framework can be developed or applied (Ban and Cox the sustainability sciences and fields of social-ecological 2017; Partelow 2018; Nagel and Partelow 2022). Develop- ment may occur through empirically backed synthesis or by * Stefan Partelow scholars based on their own knowledge, values, or interests.

;

These diverse development pathways do, however, result in 1 common trends. The structure of most frameworks is the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany identification of a set of concepts and their general relation- 2 ships — often in the form box-and-arrow diagrams — that Center for Life Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany 13 Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences are loosely defined or unspecified. This hallmark has both What is a framework? benefits and challenges. On one hand, this is arguably the purpose of frameworks, to structure the basic ideas of theory The definition and purpose of a framework is likely to or conceptual thinking, and if they were more detailed they vary across disciplines and thematic fields (Cox et al. would be models. On the other hand, there is often a “black 2016). There is no universal definition of a framework, box” nature to frameworks. It is often unclear why some sets but it is useful to provide a brief overview of different of concepts and relationships are chosen for integration into definitions for orientation. The Cambridge Dictionary frameworks, and others not. As argued below, these choices states that frameworks are “a supporting structure around are often the result of the positionality of the framework’s which something can be built; a system of rules, ideas, or creators. Publications of frameworks, furthermore, often beliefs that is used to plan or decide something.” Schlager lack descriptions of their value and potential uses compared (2007, 293) states that “frameworks provide a foundation to other frameworks or analytical tools that exist in the field. for inquiry,” and Cumming (2014, 5) adds that this “does Now shifting focus to how frameworks are applied. not necessarily depend on deductive logic to connect dif- Some frameworks provide measureable indicators as the ferent ideas.” Importantly, Binder et al., (2013, 2) note key variables in the framework, but many only suggest that “a framework provides a set of assumptions, con- general concepts. This creates the need to link concepts cepts, values and practices,” emphasizing the normative and their relationships to data through other more tangible or inherently subjective logic to framework development. indicators. Methods to measure such indicators will also A core theme being plurality and connectivity. Similarly, be needed in new empirical studies. These methodologi- McGinnis and Ostrom (2014a, 1) define frameworks as cal and study design steps necessary to associate data to “the basic vocabulary of concepts and terms that may framework concepts is often referred to as “operational- be used to construct the kinds of causal explanations izing” a framework. However, without guidance on how to expected of a theory. Frameworks organize diagnostic, do this, scholars are often left with developing their own descriptive, and prescriptive inquiry.” In a review com- strategies, which can lead to heterogeneous and idiosyn- paring ten commonly used frameworks in social-ecolog- cratic methods and data. These challenges can be referred ical systems (SES) research, Binder et al., (2013, 1) state to as methodological gaps (Partelow 2018), where the that frameworks are useful for developing “a common details of how to move from concept to indicator to meas- language, to structure research on SES, and to provide urement to data transformation, are not always detailed in guidance toward a more sustainable development of SES.” a way that welcomes replicability or learning. This is not In a similar review, Pulver et al., (2018, 1) suggest that necessarily a problem if the purpose of a framework is to frameworks “assist scholars and practitioners to analyze only guide the analysis of individual cases or synthesis the complex, nonlinear interdependencies that character- activities in isolation, for example to inform local manage- ize interactions between biophysical and social arenas and ment, but it hinders meta-analyses, cross-case learning and to navigate the new epistemological, ontological, analyti- data interpretability for others. cal, and practical horizons of integrating knowledge for In this article, a brief overview of framework definitions sustainability solutions.” It is important to recognize that and current synthesis literature are reviewed in the “What is the above claims often suggest the dualistic or bridging a framework?” section. This is coupled with the argument positions held by frameworks, in both theory building that frameworks often lack clarity in their development and and for guiding empirical observations. However, there application because their positioning within a theory of sci- is relatively little discussion in the above literature on ence is unclear. In the “Mechanisms of framework develop- how frameworks act as bridging tools within a theory ment and use: a meta-framework” section, a meta-framework of science or how frameworks add value as positioning is proposed to assist in clarifying the four major levers with tools in a field. which frameworks are developed and applied: (1) empirical Every framework has a position, meaning it is generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) hypothesizing, and located within a specific context of a scientific field. (4) application. The meta-framework aims to position indi- As positioning tools, frameworks seem to “populate the vidual frameworks into a theory of science, which can enable scientist’s world with a set of conceptual objects and scholars to take a conceptual “step back” in order to view how (non-causal) relationships among them,” shaping (and their engagement with a framework contributes to their broader sometimes limiting) the way we think about problems scientific goal and field. Two case studies of different frame- and potential solutions (Cox et al. 2016, 47). Thus, using works are provided to explore how the meta-framework can aid a specific framework helps in part to position the work of in comparing them. This is followed by a discussion of what a researcher in a field and its related concepts, theories makes a good framework, along with explicit guiding points and paradigms. for the use of frameworks in research and policy practice. 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Four factors can be considered to evaluate the positioning aggregate knowledge gains. Here, the role of frame- of a framework: (a) who developed it, (b) the values being works becomes more clear, as bridging tools that enable put forth by those researchers, (c) the research questions connections between levels of knowledge. From the top engaged with, and (d) the field in which it is embedded. For down, frameworks can specify paradigms with more tan- example, the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) gible conceptual features and relationships, which can (Ostrom 2009) was developed by (a) Elinor Ostrom who then guide empirical inquiry. For example, the Driver- developed the framework studying common-pool resource Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework and public goods governance from the 1960s until the 2000s. (Smeets and Weterings 1999; Ness, Anderberg, and Ols- Ostrom’s overall goal was (b) to examine the hindering and son 2010) specifies how to evaluate policy options and enabling conditions for governance to guide the use and pro- their effects by focusing on the five embedded concepts vision common goods towards sustainability outcomes. Her in a relational order. Scholars can then generate more primary research questions (c) related to collective action specific indicators and methods to measure the five spec- theory, unpacking how and why people cooperate with each ified features of the framework, and their relationships, other or not. The field her work is embedded in (d) is an to generate empirical insights that now have a direct link interdisciplinary mix between public policy, behavioral and to the paradigm of sustainable policy development via institutional economics. Scholars who use Ostrom’s SESF the framework. today, carry this history with them and therefore position Furthermore, frameworks can also emerge from the themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, as part of this bottom up, by distilling empirical data across cases research landscape as systems thinkers and interdisciplinar- and thus creating a knowledge bridge of more specified ians, even if they have other scholarly positions. conceptual features and relationships that connect to a Frameworks are positioned within a theory of science. paradigm. In both top-down and bottom-up mechanism, Understanding this positioning can guide scholars in frameworks can play a vital role in synthesizing and comprehending how their engagement with frameworks communicating ideas among scholars in a field — from contributes to the overall advancement of their field. To empirical data to a paradigm. A challenge may be, how- do this, taking a conceptual “step back” is necessary, to ever, that multiple frameworks have emerged attempting distinguish between different levels of theory in science. to specify the core conceptual features and relationships From the conceptually broadest to the most empirically in a paradigm. A mature scientific field is likely to have specific, we can identify the following levels of the- many frameworks to guide research and debate. There is, ory: paradigms, frameworks, specific theories, models/ however, a lack of research and tools available to com- archetypes and cases (Table 1). Knowledge production pare frameworks and their added value. processes flow up and down these levels of theory. For Beyond their use as positioning tools, frameworks make example, as argued by Kuhn (1962), the purpose of a sci- day-to-day science easier. They can guide researchers in entific field is to advance its paradigm. Thus, the study designing new empirical research by indicating which of empirical observations (e.g., case studies) — and the core concepts and relationships are of interest to be meas- development of models or theories resulting from those ured and compared. Scientific fields also need common data — are aimed at advancing the overarching paradigm. fires to huddle around, meaning that we need reference Such paradigms could be conservation, democracy, sus- points to initiate scholarly debates, coordinate disparate tainable development or social-ecological systems. empirical efforts and to communicate findings and novel There is a need to connect cases, models and specific advancements through a common language (McGinnis and theory up to the overall paradigms of a field to make Ostrom 2014a; Ban and Cox 2017). As such, frameworks Table 1  Levels of theory Levels of ­theory1 Definition Paradigms Represent and encompass the large narratives that build and drive societies and cultures, including science. Frameworks Organize diagnostic, descriptive, and prescriptive inquiry, providing the basic vocabulary of concepts and terms to construct the causal explanations expected of a theory. Specified theories Specific causal relationships among core variables. Theory is a wide level, ranging from broad sweeping claims to specified interactions, for example with archetypes, which identify. Models/archetypes Recurrent patterns among cases in which general regularities that apply to all cases cannot be expected. A detailed context specific explanation of the functional relationships among independent and dependent variables. Cases Specific empirical observations of unique contexts with identifiable variable relationships and outcomes. 1  https://​susta​inabi​litym​ethods.​org/​index.​php/​Levels_​of_​Theory 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Table 2  Suggested framework classifications in the selected synthesis Mechanisms of framework development literature and use: a meta‑framework Literature Classification/ typology This section presents a meta-framework detailing the Cumming (2014) (1) Hypothesis-oriented frameworks (2) Assessment-oriented frameworks mechanisms of framework development and use (Fig. 1). (3) Action-oriented frameworks The meta-framework illustrates the role of frameworks as (4) Problem-oriented frameworks bridging tools for knowledge synthesis and communication. (5) Theory-oriented/ overarching frameworks Therefore, the purpose of the meta-framework is to demon- Binder et al., (2013) (1) Ecocentric frameworks strate how the mechanisms of framework development and (2) Integrative frameworks (3) Policy frameworks use act as levers of knowledge flow across levels within a (4) Vulnerability frameworks theory of science, doing so by enabling the communication Ness et al., (2007) (1) Indicators/ indexes and synthesis of knowledge. Introducing the meta-frame- (2) Product-related [thematic] assessments work has two parts, outlined below. (3) Integrated assessments First, the meta-framework visualizes the levels along the scale of scientific theory including paradigms, frame- works, specific theory and empirical observations, intro- are useful for synthesis research, focusing the attention of duced above. Along this scale, three mechanisms of reviews and meta-analyses around core sets of concepts logical reasoning are typical: induction, deduction, and and relationships. abduction. Induction is a mode of logical reasoning based There is, however, a tension between frameworks that on sets of empirical observations, which, when patterns aim to capture complexity and those that aim to simplify within those observations emerge, can inform more gen- core principles. Complexity oriented frameworks often eralized theory formation. Induction, in its pure form, is advance systems thinking at the risk of including too many reasoning without prior assumptions about what we think variables. They often have long lists of variables which is happening. In contrast, deduction is a mode of logical makes empirical orientation and synthesis difficult. On the reasoning based on testing a claim or hypothesis, often other hand, simplification frameworks face the challenge of based on a body of theory, against an observation to infer leaving important things out, with the benefit of clarifying whether or not a claim is true. In contrast to induction, what may be important and giving clear direction. which always leads to probable or fuzzy conclusions, From a more critical perspective, the “criteria for com- deductive logic provides true or false conclusions. A third paring frameworks are not well developed,” (Schlager, mode of logical reasoning is abduction. Abduction starts 2007, 312), and the positionality of frameworks has not with a single or limited set of observations, and assumes been rigorously explored outside of smaller studies. None- the most likely cause as a conclusion. Abduction can only theless, numerous classifications or typologies of frame- provide probable conclusions. Knowledge claims from all works within specific fields have been suggested (Table 2), three modes of logical reasoning are part of the nexus of although not with reference to positionality (Spangenberg potential framework creation or modification. 2011; Binder et al. 2013; Cumming 2014; Schlager 2007; Second, the meta-framework has four iterative medi- Ness et al. 2007; Potschin-Young et al. 2018; Cox et al. ating processes that directly enable the development 2021; Louder et al. 2021; Chofreh and Goni 2017; Alaoui and/or application of frameworks (Fig. 1). Two of the et al. 2022; Tapio and Willamo 2008). These studies point four mediating processes relate to framework develop- to the question of: what makes a good framework? Are ment: (1) empirical generalization and (2) theoretical fit- there certain quality criteria that make some frameworks ting. The other two relate to framework application: (3) more useful than others? There has undoubtedly been a hypothesizing, and (4) application (Fig. 1, Table 3). The rise in the number of frameworks, but as expressed by Ban details of the specific mediating pathways are outlined in and Cox (2017, 2), “it is not clear what the role of a scien- Table 3, including the processes involved in each. There tific framework should be, and relatedly, what makes for a are numerous potential benefits and challenges associated successful scientific framework. Although there are many with each (Table 3). frameworks […] there is little discussion on what their scientific role ought to be, other than providing a common The value of a meta‑framework scientific language.” The meta-framework presented below serves as a tool for answering these questions and provides The presented meta-framework (Fig.  1) allows us to guidance for developing and implementing frameworks in assess the values different frameworks can provide. If a a range of settings. framework provides a novel synthesis of key ideas or new 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Fig. 1  A meta-framework outlining the central role frameworks of logical reasoning contribute to framework development: induc- play in scientific advancement through their development and tion, deduction and abduction. Frameworks are used and devel- use. In the center, frameworks provide two core bridging values: oped through four mediating processes: (1) empirical generaliza- knowledge synthesis and knowledge communication. Three modes tion, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) application, and (4) hypothesizing developments in a field, and communicates those insights framework contributes to. The meta-framework can add well in its composition, it likely adds notable value. If a value by guiding the assessment of how frameworks fit framework coordinates scientific inquiry across the 1 or into the bigger picture of knowledge contribution in their more of the four mediating processes, it likely acts as an field. Furthermore, many scholars and practitioners are important gatekeeper and boundary object for what may interested in developing new frameworks. The meta- otherwise be disparate or tangential research. If it con- framework outlines the mechanisms that can be consid- tributes substantial advances in 3 or 4 of the mediating ered in creating the framework as well as help developers processes, the value of the framework is likely higher. of new frameworks communicate how their frameworks The meta-framework can further help identify the posi- add value. For example, to link empirical data collection tioning of framework such as the type of logical reason- to theoretical work in their field. ing processes used to create it, as well as help clarify The meta-framework can help compare frameworks, the role of a framework along the scale of knowledge to assess strengths and weaknesses in terms of their production (i.e., from data to paradigm). It might be positioning and knowledge production mechanisms. It clear, for example, what paradigm or specific theory a can also help elucidate the need for, or value of, new 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Table 3  Four mediating processes in knowledge production for using which act as bridging objects in knowledge production processes across and developing frameworks as bridging objects in knowledge production. the three modes of logical reasoning Each process interfaces with the development and use of frameworks, Mediating process Purpose Process and practice Benefits (+) and challenges (-) (1) Empirical generalization Development Empirical comparison, meta-analysis or review. • New variables added from data (+) Inferring observations as representative of broader • Existing variables modified (+) phenomena • Clarify variable relationships (+) • Validate hypotheses (+) • Criteria for adding variables (-) • Criteria for modifying variables (−) (2) Theoretical fitting Development Explaining observations with existing theory or • Theory as a construction base (+/−) hypotheses. • Informs potential components to include of broader value for the field (+) • Limits inputs from specific theory (−) (3) Application Use Gathering diverse empirical observations. Taking • List of variables to focus on (+) what is known generally, as a guide for what is • List of relationships to focus on (+) important to observe. • Which variables to choose? (-) • How to measure (i.e., what methods)? (−) • Limited set of variables (−/+) (4) Hypothesizing Use Hypothesizing new relationships. Taking what is • Use framework to derive new relation- known generally, as a guide for suggesting new ships (+) relationships to be tested. • Limits hypotheses based on new observa- tions (−) • Framework likely limited to a specific perspective, aim or value (+/−) frameworks. This challenge is noted by Cumming (2014, briefly illustrate how the positionality of each frame- 18) in the field of social-ecological systems, reflect- work dictates how others use them to produce knowledge ing that “the tendency of researchers to develop “new” towards a paradigm. In the case of the DPSIR framework, frameworks without fully explaining how they relate to from the top-down towards a policy goal, and with the other existing frameworks and what new elements they SESF, from the bottom-up towards a theoretical goal. bring to the problem is another obvious reason for the lack of a single dominant, unifying framework.” To showcase such as comparison, two brief examples are Discussion and directions forward provided. The first example features the Driver-Pressure- State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework developed Frameworks are commons objects to huddle around in by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) (Box 1) academic and practitioner communities, providing iden- (Smeets and Weterings 1999; Ness, Anderberg, and Ols- tity and guiding our effort. They focus scholarly atten- son 2010). The DPSIR framework exemplifies a frame- tion on important issues, stimulate cognitive energy and work developed from the top-down (theoretical fitting) provide fodder for discussion. However, reflection on approach, to better organize the policy goal and paradigm the role and purpose of the frameworks we use needs of environmental sustainability to the indicators collected to be a more common practice in science. The proposed by EU member states. The second example highlights meta-framework aims to showcase the role of frameworks the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) devel- as boundary objects that connect ideas and concepts to oped by Elinor Ostrom (Box 2) (Ostrom 2009; McGinnis data in constructive and actionable ways, enabling knowl- and Ostrom 2014a). The SESF exemplifies a framework edge to be built up and aggregated within scientific fields developed from the bottom up (empirical generalization) through using common languages and concepts (Mollinga to aggregate data into common variables to enable data 2008; Klein 1996). standardization and comparison towards theory build- Boundary objects such as frameworks can be espe- ing to improve environmental governance. In the case cially important for inter- and transdisciplinary collabo- examples (Box 1; Box 2), we can see the value of both ration, where there may be few prior shared points of con- frameworks from different perspectives. The examples ceptual understanding or terminology beyond a problem 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Box 1  Drivers – Pressures – State – Impact - Response (DPSIR) framework context. Mollinga (2008, 33) reflects that “frameworks An important feature of frameworks is that the very are typical examples of boundary objects, building con- contestation over their nature is perhaps their main value. nections between the worlds of science and that of policy, A framework can only be an effective boundary object and between different knowledge domains,” and that “the if it catalyzes deliberation and scholarly debate — thus development of frameworks is at present probably the contestation over what it is and its value is seeded into the most common strategy in the field of natural resources toolbox and identity of a scholarly field. Although most management to achieve integration and interdisciplinar- frameworks are likely to have shortcomings, flaws or con- ity,” (Mollinga, 2008, 31). They are, however, critically troversial features, the fact that they motivate engagement important for both disciplinary specific fundamental around common problems and stimulate scholarly engage- research, as well as for bridging science-society gaps ment is a value of its own. In doing so, frameworks often through translating often esoteric academic concepts become symbols of individual and community identity in and findings into digestible and often visual objects. contested spaces. This is evidenced in how frameworks For example, the DPSIR framework (Box 1) attempts to are often used to stamp our research as valid, relevant better organize the analysis of environmental indicators and important to the field, even if done passively. Citing for policy evaluation processes in the EU. Furthermore, a framework both communicates the general purpose of Partelow et al., (2019) and Gurney et al., (2019) both what a scholar is attempting to achieve to others, and use Ostrom’s SESF (Box 2) as a boundary object at the orients science towards a common synthetic object for science-society interface to visually communicate sys- future knowledge synthesis and debate. These positioning tems thinking and social-ecological interactions to fish- actions are essential for science and practitioner commu- ers and coastal stakeholders involved in local manage- nities to understand a research or policy project, its aims ment decision-making. and assumptions. Historically, disciplines have provided 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Box 2  Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) this value – signaling the problems, methods and theories Table 4, generated from the literature cited throughout this one is likely to engage with. Frameworks can act as tools article, feedback from colleagues and personal experiences for bridging disciplines, helping to catalyze interdiscipli- applying and developing numerous frameworks. The guid- nary engagement (Mollinga 2008; Klein 1996). As many ing points focus on the two types of mediating processes, scientific communities shift focus towards solving real- framework development and use (Table 4). world problems (e.g., climate change, gender equality), In conclusion, we need to know our academic tools in order tools that can help scientists’ cooperate and communicate, make the best use of them in our own research, practice and such as a framework, will continue to play a vital role in knowledge communities. Frameworks have gained substantial achieving knowledge co-production goals. popularity for the communication and synthesis of academic ideas, and as tools we all have the ability to create and perhaps Guiding points for framework engagement the responsibility to steward. However, frameworks have strug- gled to find roots in a theory of science which grounds their An aim of this article is not only to reflect on the purpose, contributions in relation to other scientific tools such as models, value and positioning of frameworks, but to provide some specific theories and empirical data. There is also a lack of dis- take-away advice for engaging with frameworks in current cussion about what makes a good framework and how to apply or future work. Over the course of this article, the question frameworks in a way to makes those applications of integrative of “What makes a good framework?” has been explored. value to an overall community of scholars positioned around it. The meta-framework outlines mechanisms of useful frame- The meta-framework provided in this article offers insights into works and can help understand the positioning of frame- how to understand the purpose and positionality of frameworks, works. Nonetheless, more detailed guiding points can be as well as the mechanisms for understanding the creation and specified for both the use and development of frameworks application of frameworks. The meta-framework further allows going forward. A series of guiding points are outlined in for the comparison of frameworks to assess their value. 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Table 4  Guiding points for future framework engagement, separated References by development (or modification) and application Framework process Guiding points Alaoui A, Barão L, Ferreira CSS, Hessel R (2022) An Overview of sus- tainability assessment frameworks in agriculture. Land 11(4):1– Development and/ • Explain the framework’s positioning: (1) who 26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​land1​10405​37 or modification developed it, (2) the values of those research- Ban NC, Cox M (2017) Advancing social-ecological research through ers, (3) the research questions engaged with, teaching: summary, observations, and challenges. Ecol Soc 22(1):1–3 and (4) the field in which it is embedded. Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, • Explain the purpose of the framework, for Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B, Zondervan R (2010) Earth system example, which paradigms, specific theories governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreem Polit and models it is intended to contribute to. 10(4):277–298. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10784-​010-​9137-3 • Explain each of the frameworks compo- Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Comparison of nents and relationships, and how they were Frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc conceived (i.e., through review/meta-analysis, 18(4):26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​05551-​180426 expert knowledge, empirical work, opinion). Chofreh AG, Goni FA (2017) Review of frameworks for sustainability • Explain how the framework can be applied by implementation. Sustain Dev 25(3):180–188. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ others to increase methodological learning and 1002/​sd.​1658 data cohesiveness. Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems • Explain why the framework is novel and adds discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc 24(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ value compared to other existing frameworks. es-​10598-​240102 Application/ use • Explain why the specific framework was Cox M, Gurney GG, Anderies JM, Coleman E, Darling E, Epstein G, selected for use, and not others. Frey UJ (2021) Lessons learned from synthetic research projects • Explain the step-by-step methodological based on the ostrom workshop frameworks. Ecol Soc 26(1) processes developed or used to move from Cox M, Villamayor-tomas S, Epstein G, Evans L, Ban NC, Fleischman concepts to indicators to measurement to data F, Nenadovic M, Garcia-lopez G (2016) Synthesizing theories of transformation and analysis. natural resource management and governance. Glob Environ Chang • Explain how a current theory or paradigm link 39(January):45–56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2016.​04.​011 to the framework Cumming GS (2014) Theoretical Frameworks for the analysis of social- • Explain if and why framework was partially ecological systems. In: Sakai S, Umetsu C (eds) Social-Ecological or fully applied. Systems in Transition. Springer, Japan. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ • Explain how the data collected or hypotheses 978-4-​431-​54910-9 generated, can be used by others. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigaud- erie A et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://​ doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cosust.​2014.​11.​002 Gurney GG, Darling ES, Jupiter SD, Mangubhai S, McClanahan TR, Lestari P, Pardede S et al (2019) Implementing a social-ecological Acknowledgements  I would like to thank Michael Cox and Achim systems framework for conservation monitoring: lessons from a Schlüter for their helpful feedback on previous versions of the manu- multi-country coral reef program. Biol Conserv 240(August). script and the ideas within it. I am grateful to the Leibniz Centre for https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biocon.​2019.​108298 Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) in Bremen, and the Center for Life Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions (University of Ethics at the University of Bonn for support. Chicago Press) Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and Funding  Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville and DEAL. London Louder E, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, Bednarek AT (2021) A Synthesis Declarations  of the frameworks available to guide evaluations at the interface of environmental science on policy and practice. Environ Sci Policy Competing interests  The authors declares that he has no competing 116(July 2020):1–27. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ nvsci.2​ 020.​12.​006 interests. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014a) Social-Ecological system frame- work: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2). Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​06387-​190230 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Mollinga PP (2008) In: Evers H-D, Gerke S, Mollinga P, Schetter C (eds) adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, The rational organisation of dissent: boundary concepts, bound- as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and ary objects and boundary settings in the interdisciplinary Study of the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and Natural Resources Management. University of Bonn, Bonn indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party Nagel B, Partelow S (2022) A methodological guide for applying the material in this article are included in the article's Creative Com- ses framework: a review of quantitative approaches. Ecol Soc mons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate- Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in rial. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons sustainability science: the multi-Level DPSIR framework. licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regula- Geoforum 41(3):479–488. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geofo​r um.​ tion or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis- 2009.​12.​005 sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categoris- licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. ing tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2006.​07.​023 13 Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422. https://​doi.​ overview. In: Bosch P, Büchele M, Gee D (eds) European Envi- org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​11721​33 ronment Agency (EEA), vol 50. European Environment Agency, Partelow S (2018) A review of the social-ecological systems frame- Copenhagan work: applications, methods, modifications and challenges. Ecol Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability Science: a review, an analysis Soc and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287. Partelow S, Fujitani M, Soundararajan V, Schlüter A (2019) Transform- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0376​89291​10002​70 ing the social-ecological systems framework into a knowledge Tapio P, Willamo R (2008) Developing Interdisciplinary environmental exchange and deliberation tool for comanagement. Ecol Soc 24(1). frameworks. Ambio 37(2):125–133. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 579/0​ 044-​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​10724-​240115 7447(2008)​37[125:​DIEF]2.​0.​CO;2 Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer UN (2019) Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secre- C (2018) Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: read- tary-General, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The ing the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv. https://​doi.​org/​ Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. 10.​1016/j.​ecoser.​2017.​05.​015 United Nations, New York Pulver S, Ulibarri N, Sobocinski KL, Alexander SM, Johnson ML, Mccord PF (2018) Frontiers in socio-environmental research: Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to components, connections, scale, and context. Ecol Soc 23(3) jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Schlager E (2007) A Comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the Policy Process, 1st edn. Routledge, pp 293–319 13