gec-conceptual-framework

Conceptual Framework (gec-conceptual-framework)

GEC publishes work that is theoretically and empirically rigorous. The conceptual framework is what makes a human-dimensions paper more than a description: it names the concepts, specifies how they relate, and dictates what evidence would confirm or disconfirm the argument. This is the heart of a GEC paper — treat it as a load-bearing contribution, not boilerplate.

When to trigger

• Defining the concepts, mechanisms, and relationships the paper rests on
• A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "descriptive," or "the framework does no work"
• Adapting an established framework (IPCC vulnerability, Ostrom SES/IAD, MLP transitions, livelihoods)
• Building an original framework or integrating two traditions

What a strong GEC framework does

1. Generates the question. The framework should make clear why the question follows — the gap from gec-literature-positioning is what it is built to close.
2. Defines concepts precisely. Vulnerability, adaptive capacity, resilience, governance, transition, equity — these are contested terms. State which definition you use and why.
3. Specifies relationships and mechanisms. Name the causal or constitutive links (driver → pressure → response; hazard × exposure × vulnerability; actors × institutions × outcomes). A diagram often helps.
4. Dictates the evidence. The framework must say what observations would support or undermine it — this is the bridge to gec-research-design.
5. Is interdisciplinary by construction. Connect a domain concept to a social-science concept so the framework speaks across GEC's literatures.

Common frameworks (adapt, don't decorate)

Tradition	Core lens	Watch for
Vulnerability / risk	hazard × exposure × vulnerability; entitlements; livelihoods	conflating risk with hazard; ignoring social differentiation
Socio-ecological systems	IAD / SES (Ostrom); feedbacks; commons	box-ticking the framework without using it
Sustainability transitions	multi-level perspective; niches/regimes/landscape	treating transitions as automatic, apolitical
Governance	polycentric / adaptive / multi-level governance	describing institutions without explaining outcomes
Political ecology	power, scale, access, distribution	narrative with no analytic structure

Anti-patterns

• Citing a framework in the intro then never using it to structure the analysis
• A "kitchen-sink" framework with every fashionable concept and no mechanism
• Undefined contested terms (resilience, vulnerability) used loosely
• A framework that cannot be confronted with evidence (unfalsifiable)

Referee-pushback patterns and the GEC-specific fix

These are the framework objections GEC referees write most often, paired with the move that converts them. The signature GEC failure is a framework borrowed from natural science with the human-dimensions content thinned to a label.

Referee wording you will see	What it diagnoses	The fix that lands at GEC
"The framework is invoked but does no analytic work"	A decorative citation, not a load-bearing lens	Re-derive each hypothesis from a named link in the framework; show one result the framework predicted and a rival did not
"Human dimensions are thin — this reads as natural science with a social gloss"	Coupled system asserted, only the biophysical half theorised	Give actors, institutions, and distributional stakes equal conceptual weight to the hazard or biophysical driver
"Concepts are used loosely (resilience, vulnerability)"	Contested terms left undefined	Commit to one definition with a citation, state what it excludes, and use it identically throughout
"The framework is not connected to the evidence"	No bridge from concept to observable	Add an explicit row mapping each concept to its measure and the disconfirming observation
"Integration is stapled, not genuine"	Two literatures cited side by side	Name the single constitutive link where the domain and social-science concepts meet on your question

Worked micro-example (illustrative — coastal adaptation vignette)

A team frames a mixed-methods study of climate adaptation and social vulnerability in a coastal delta region. Numbers below are illustrative.

• Weak version (desk-reject risk): "We apply a resilience lens to flooding in the delta." Resilience is undefined; the framework predicts nothing; the social half is a sentence.
• GEC-strong version: the framework specifies hazard exposure (storm-surge depth) × differentiated entitlements (land tenure, credit access) → adaptive action → residual vulnerability. It commits to a livelihoods-plus-entitlements definition of vulnerability, and predicts that households in the bottom tenure tier adapt 40% less (illustrative) despite equal exposure.
• Payoff: when the survey shows adaptive-action rates of 0.62 vs 0.37 (illustrative) across tenure tiers at equal surge exposure, the framework — not the hazard alone — explains the gap, and a pure biophysical rival cannot.

Calibration anchors (hedged where uncertain)

• Interdisciplinary integration bar: a GEC framework that a social scientist and a domain scientist would both recognise as theirs clears the bar; one half present, the other labelled, does not.
• Falsifiability bar: if no realistic observation could undermine the framework, referees treat it as narrative, not theory.
• Global-significance framing: the framework should explain why the mechanism travels beyond the case, even when the evidence is local; confirm the journal's current scope statement on its author guidelines for the exact wording.

Output format

【Core concepts】defined (with the definition chosen)
【Relationships / mechanism】the links the framework asserts
【Interdisciplinary link】the domain ↔ social-science connection
【Evidence implied】what would confirm / disconfirm it
【Diagram?】yes/no (recommended for complex frameworks)
【Next】gec-research-design

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — conceptual frameworks and systems-mapping tools
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — GEC emphasis on theoretical rigor