Conceptual Frameworks and Theoretical Frameworks in the Mixed Methods Research Process: Clarifying Distinctions, Complementarities, and Applications.

Conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks are among the most frequently invoked yet inconsistently defined structures in contemporary research, particularly within mixed methods research. Despite their centrality to research design, interpretation, and integration, the methodological literature reveals sustained terminological drift characterized by origin-based distinctions (i.e., differentiating frameworks by whether they derive from formal theory or from study-specific conceptual construction), umbrella configurations (i.e., redefining one framework type as an overarching category that absorbs the other), synonymization (i.e., using the terms interchangeably), hierarchical nesting (i.e., positioning one framework within the other), and functional abstraction (i.e., defining frameworks by general purpose rather than by epistemic grounding). Drawing on a systematic conceptual analysis of influential methodological texts (2000-2025) and informed by the Critical Dialectical Pluralism 2.0 (CDP 2.0) meta-transformative and multidimensional metaparadigm and metaphilosophy, this article restores epistemic differentiation between conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks and situates their functions within deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning logics. We develop reasoning-oriented typologies that clarify how framework type should be aligned with epistemic movement rather than with methodological tradition (qualitative vs. quantitative). Extending this analysis, we examine patterns of framework use and misuse, distinguish theory-driven and model-driven literature reviews, and articulate mixed methods research-specific, logic-integrated definitions. Specifically, we advance restored definitions tailored to mixed methods research that differentiate explanatory regulation within phases/strands from integrative architectural coordination across phases/strands. We argue that theoretical frameworks regulate explanation, whereas conceptual frameworks regulate structural organization--extending, in mixed methods research, to the integration of phases and strands. When differentiated yet coordinately deployed, these frameworks function as complementary instruments within a multidimensional analytic architecture. We conclude by outlining implications for research design, doctoral education, and scholarly communication, positioning this effort as a movement toward disciplined pluralism in framework articulation. By advancing disciplined pluralism, this article strengthens analytic coherence, reduces jingle and jangle vulnerabilities (i.e., different terms for the same construct and identical terms for different constructs, respectively), and enhances transparency in framework articulation across qualitative research, quantitative research, and mixed methods research traditions.