Competing frameworks and models

Collated and edited by Ross Woods, 2026

When conceptual frameworks and theoretical models face competing frameworks and models, how should researchers think of these "competitors"?

This moves beyond developing models to evaluating them. In mature fields, researchers rarely ask whether a model is "right" or "wrong." Instead, they ask which model provides the better explanation for a particular phenomenon.

It can be useful to think of competing conceptual frameworks and theoretical models in much the same way biologists think about competing species occupying an ecological niche. Models "compete" because they attempt to explain the same phenomenon.

1. Competing models explain the same phenomenon differently

Suppose researchers are studying why doctoral students complete their dissertations. Several models might exist, and each explains the same outcome but attributes it to different mechanisms. Consequently, the competition is not personal—it is explanatory.

Model	Primary explanation
Motivation model	Internal motivation drives persistence.
Social support model	Relationships sustain students.
Institutional model	University structures determine success.
Self-regulation model	Planning and monitoring behaviour are key.

2. Competition is rarely winner-takes-all

Unlike a sporting contest, one model seldom eliminates all others. Over time, models often become more specialised when researchers discover things such as:

• Model A explains undergraduate students well.
• Model B explains doctoral students better.
• Model C works only in online environments.
• Model D explains the early stages but not later stages.

3. Researchers compare models using multiple criteria

Rather than asking "Which model do I like?", they shifts the discussion from opinion to evidence by asking questions such as:

Criterion	Comparative question
Scope	Which explains more situations?
Accuracy	Which better fits the evidence?
Predictive ability	Which predicts future outcomes more accurately?
Simplicity	Which requires fewer assumptions?
Completeness	Which explains more variables?
Practical usefulness	Which helps practitioners make better decisions?
Replicability	Which continues to work across different studies?

4. Some competitors are nested

Many apparent competitors are actually related. For example:

These are not necessarily incompatible. One may describe learning at a broad philosophical level, while another explains a specific cognitive process.

5. Some competitors become integrated

One of the most productive outcomes of research is not proving one model wrong, but combining insights from several models. For example, a new model might conclude that dissertation completion depends on:

• motivation,
• supervisory relationships,
• institutional support,
• self-regulation, and
• research skills.

Rather than replacing previous models, it synthesises them into a broader explanation. This is common in fields such as education, psychology, and management.

6. Some models dominate because they solve more problems

The history of science contains many examples where one model gradually displaced another because it consistently explained more evidence with fewer exceptions. This resembles what Thomas Kuhn described as changes in scientific paradigms. A new framework often gains acceptance because it resolves anomalies that the previous framework could not explain, not simply because it is newer.

7. Competition drives better theory

Without competing models, theoretical development can stagnate. Healthy competition encourages researchers to:

• define concepts more precisely,
• make clearer predictions,
• specify the boundaries of their models,
• test them in diverse contexts,
• identify where they fail, and
• refine or extend them.

Another way to think about competitors

A conceptual framework or theoretical model has at least four kinds of competitors, not just one:

Competitor	Question it asks
Alternative explanation	Does another model explain the same phenomenon better?
Broader framework	Does another model explain this phenomenon and many others?
More parsimonious framework	Can another model explain the same evidence with fewer concepts or assumptions?
Integrative framework	Can the strengths of several competing models be combined into a more comprehensive model?

This suggests that researchers should not view competing models solely as rivals to be defeated. They are also potential sources of insight. Many influential theoretical advances have emerged by identifying the strengths and limitations of existing frameworks and then integrating the most robust elements into a more comprehensive explanation.

From this perspective, the goal of theory development is not simply to “win” against competing models, but to increase the field's overall explanatory power. A successful new model should therefore demonstrate why it is preferable within its intended scope—whether because it explains more evidence, makes more accurate predictions, is more parsimonious, clarifies underlying mechanisms, or integrates previously disconnected ideas.