research binder meaning

• School Year Programs Overview
• Shop MUN Clubs
• Shop MUN Workshops
• Shop MUN Conferences
• Shop Tutoring
• Camp Overview
• Shop Virtual Camps
• Shop In Person Camps
• Advisor Institute
• All Free Resources
• Getting Started With MUN
• High School MUN Conferences
• Middle School MUN Conferences
• College & University MUN Conferences
• Upcoming Events
• What is MUN
• Awards & Rankings
• MUN Community Blog
• Best Delegate’s Story

MUN Research Made Easy: 15 Things Every Delegate Should Have in their Research Binder

You see it everywhere at MUN conferences. You’ve made your own — or, more likely, your advisor told you to make one. And you probably didn’t want to. It’s confusing to create and cumbersome to carry. You might even be embarrassed to bring one to committee — maybe you poke fun at others for bringing theirs.

When I started doing Model UN, research was a chore. I wrote position papers at the last minute, printed out a bunch of random websites the night before conferences, and read a fraction of it on the bus. Research was something boring I needed to do before I could do the fun stuff.

But I soon realized this was putting me at a disadvantage. I couldn’t speak or debate as freely because I didn’t know the facts. I was afraid to suggest an idea because I wasn’t sure if the committee had done it already. And it’s pretty obvious to chairs who has done their research and who has not. Not doing mine made me feel uncomfortable.

I knew that if I was confident in my research, that confidence would come through in speeches and debates. I just needed a way to research that took as little time as possible to learn just what I needed to know, but to know it thoroughly. I needed to do my research to the point that it made me feel comfortable in committee.

I needed to put together a research binder.

And many conferences and committees later, I’ve come to appreciate the value of a good, well-organized binder. There are a few reasons why:

• It actually speeds up research. Putting together a binder sounds time-consuming, but it takes less time and brain power to learn something that is organized well. When you’re reading different websites and books, the important facts are spread out across different sources. It ultimately takes more time to read through a random assortment of printed pages than to just organize it in the first place.
• It gets faster with experience. After putting together a few binders, I realized I was turning to the same sources over and over. Eventually, I would just print everything out first, put together the binder, and then read through it all in one shot. And since I chose to specialize in certain committees, I could easily recycle my research binders and improve on them.
• It’s useful for more than the information it contains. Having your research readily available in committee is very helpful. In addition, bringing a well-organized binder to committee communicates to the chair and other delegates that you mean business. But be careful – you may not want to communicate this kind of intensity, depending on how you want to be perceived in committee.

I organized my binders by starting from the “big picture” — conference, committee, and country — then zooming in on the details — topics, policies, and solutions. In other words, I framed my approach to research. Using a framework made it easier to do research because it gave me an idea of what to look for, and I could use it for every conference.

Using this framework, there are 15 things every delegate should include in their binders:

1. Awards Policy. If you’re trying to win an award, then you should know what the conference values and what your chair is looking for.

2. Rules of Procedure. Rules tell you how committee is going operate, and what you can and cannot do. They differ for every conference — not just what the rules are, but how they are applied.

3. Your committee’s actual UN website. The goal of a committee is to pass a resolution, which depends on what a committee can and cannot do. You want to understand your committee’s mandate (why it was created), powers (what it can do), organization (how it fits into the UN and the larger international community), and membership (who’s in it).

4. UN Charter. If you are in a GA, ECOSOC, or Security Council committee, then the source of your committee’s power is the UN Charter. If you are in a regional organization like NATO or OAS, then you are still affected by the Charter, particularly Chapter VII on international security and Chapter VIII on regional arrangements.

5. CIA Factbook. Every MUNers go-to source for essential information on their country. You want to know your country’s location, neighbors, population size, type of government, type of economy, trade partners, and the international organizations it’s a part of. Not knowing this information as your country’s representative can be potentially embarrassing.

6. Wikipedia. Information on your country’s history and its recent controversies. There should be articles on your topic, too. Wikipedia might not be edited as rigorously as a print publication, but you are not writing a paper – you’re attending a Model UN conference. Just take note of any potential issues that are listed at the topic of Wikipedia pages, e.g. “This article needs additional citations for verification.”

7. Background Guide. Either you, another delegate, or your chair will inevitably refer to something written in the committee’s background guide during a conference. Also, what your chair has written about is what he’ll focus on in committee. Use that knowledge to craft speeches and operative clauses that grab the chair’s attention.

8. News Articles. You want to know the latest news on your topics, as well as your own country. The simplest way to do this is to run searches on Yahoo! News and Google News, and print out the headlines. BBC Online also features easy-to-use timelines and profiles on your issues and country. Large publications like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal also have in-depth coverage on their websites.

9. Resolutions, Treaties, and Conventions. Before you can do anything on the topic, you need to know what’s already been done. You can find past resolutions through the UN documentation center , although it can be difficult to navigate. Once you’ve found the latest resolution, the perambulatory clauses should direct you to other resolutions. Also, the most relevant piece of international law on your topic might not be a past resolution, but instead a treaty or convention.

10. Speeches and Press Releases. These are the ways that policy-makers set policy. Be sure to use speeches and press releases from people in the executive branch of your country’s current government (President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister / Secretary of State, Ambassadors). Legislators and judges may say something different, but as a representative of your country, you work for the Head of State / Head of Government. Start with the website for your country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs / Department of State.

11. Voting Record. Actions speak louder than words. If your country’s leaders have not clearly articulated a policy on your topic, then you can infer it from how your country has voted on past resolutions, treaties, and conventions (or whether they were even present). Note that recent speeches may indicate a change in policy away from however your country has voted in the past, especially if your government has changed administrations. Nonetheless, you still want to know how your country’s past actions on the topic, for your own knowledge, and in case anyone asks.

12. Op-Ed and Blog Articles. These writers are coming from a personal or journalistic perspective, but they can still give you ideas that you can propose in committee and use in resolutions. You can start with large publications like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, but don’t forget about blogs, too. Just be aware of their biases, and make sure their ideas conform to your country’s policies.

13. Think Tanks. Organizations like RAND are paid to come up with solutions to the topics you discuss in Model UN. Think tank publications have more depth and evidence than an opinion article, but they’re typically not as dense as an academic paper. They might also be pushing a certain agenda, so be aware of that. Otherwise, they are a great starting point for proposing potential solutions.

14. Academic Papers. These are tough reads and the information is way too dense for Model UN. But they are probably the most insightful and rigorously edited sources you will find online. You can use Google Scholar to find papers. Don’t spent time trying to process a paper the way you would do for a class. Read the abstract and skim the paper for ideas that you can use in committee.

15. Your Ideas. Include in your binder your position papers, working papers, notes, thoughts, as well as blank lined paper – Don’t rely on a conference to bring enough paper for draft resolutions and note passing. You can do all the research you want, and you can be really fast and efficient at it, but none of that matters until you boil down what you’ve read into ideas that you can explain in your own words.

Want a shareable version of this article to share with your team? Download the guide to everything you need in your research binder!

Next post: How to Build a Top Travel Team: Why Strength, Size, and Finances Matter

Previous post: Weekly Resolution – September 27, 2010

Summer MUN Camps

• Virtual Camps
• On Campus Day & Overnight Camps
• 3 Day Summer Advisor Institute

School Year MUN Programs

• MUN Workshops
• MUN Conferences
• MUN Club Accelerator

Free Resources

• Get Started with MUN 
• Student Resources 
• Teacher Resources 
• Parent Resources

Best Delegate Model UN

• Meet The Team
• 12 year Impact Report
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• One Mifflin Place Suite 400 #3456 Cambridge, MA 02138
• [email protected] (646) 308-1411

© 2020 BEST DELEGATE. All Rights Reserved | Site design by Hibiscus Creative on Thesis

How to Prepare a Research Binder for Model UN

The best delegates are usually those with the most information. It is this knowledge, strategically used, that allows them to be key diplomats during a Model United Nations committee session. At those conferences which do not allow electronic devices or internet use, access to information becomes even more critical. To excel in such cases delegates need research binders, to be able to organize information effectively and reach it quickly.

Researching countries, committees, and topics for the conference is the most important thing you will need to prepare. As you have seen, there is so much information available, it can be overwhelming. As a delegate, you will have to learn your country, committee assignment, rules of procedure, and how to write Model UN position papers and resolutions. If all of this data does not get organized into a research binder, you will not have the information you need when you need it. While most things are electronic in nature now, for conferences that do not allow electronics, nothing will be better than having a physical research binder to take with you. Besides, electronic devices will most likely not be allowed informal committee sessions, so it will be best to have all of the information in print form.

This article will help give you an idea of how to create a research binder. We will give you a breakdown of what needs to go in it and give some resources where you can find some of the information. Also, for those who can bring in computers or electronics, this guide can give you useful ideas on how to sort your folders and files.

1) Study Guide/Background Guide Have a short section of United Nations history here, but not much. Just some major dates and conventions will be useful. Check our articles on UN history and The UN Today for some general information.

You will want to have some good background information about the committees they are representing. What is its mandate? How long has it been around? What are its major accomplishments? Knowing the ins and outs of their committee will ensure that they can focus their energy on the topics at hand.

2) Country Information For a good idea of how you can prepare research for your country, check out on how to   research for Model UN .

As the guide says, don’t go too far back with your research. What happened in your country’s past is important, but will a civil war in the 1950’s effect the outcome of negotiations in your committee. Remember, every country has history, but the UN focuses on the here and now. Your committees will be focused on modern issues that affect the world today, so focus on what your country is doing now and in its very recent past.

3) Previous Resolutions/Voting History You need to research how your country has responded to issues within the UN, including resolutions it has sponsored. At the   UN Member States , On the Record webpage, you can find the information you need. You can search your country’s sponsored resolutions, general debate statements, and activities within different committees. When you know the topics that will be discussed in committee, it would be a good idea to narrow your search down to see how your country has responded to those issues recently. Print these resolutions out and have them in the binder for reference.

4) Treaties, Conventions, and Think Tank Papers The   United Nations Treaty Collection   web-page will help you find out which treaties your country is a signatory to. If the topics for your committee concern specific treaties, find them print them out. If your country is a signatory on the treaty then know why. If it is not, then there is probably a specific reason for that. Use the treaty collection page as a resource to begin research.

A list of   UN declarations and conventions can be found here . The database can be searched by year or by subject.

Be sure to look for information relevant to your country and committee at some reputable Think Tanks. Some of the top Think Tanks are   listed here . Be sure to gather as much relevant information you can that will help you prevail in MUN negotiations.  

5) Countries in Relevant Blocks You will need allies at the conference, but you want to make sure it is with countries your country would usually be allied with. For example, if you represent Ukraine, there is little chance you will be co-sponsoring a resolution with Russia about the need for global cooperation.

Refer to our article that outlines regional organizations. Is your country contained within one of these larger blocks? This is a good place to start looking for allies. What other countries share similar issues with yours? Find them and work with them. If you represent a smaller country, don’t think you won’t be able to form a large voting block to be taken seriously. Have this information in your binder and ready to present during caucuses.  

6) Committee Background You will want to have a complete understanding of what your committee’s mandate and purpose is. Find your committee   here on the UN’s website   to get started. You will want the following:

• Committee mandate
•  Major accomplishments
• Current involvement
• Your country’s involvement with the committee

7) Your Ideas Have a realistic idea of what your positions will be when you get to the conference. You will know ahead of time all of the topics that will be discussed. You will probably have written a position paper for your country to send to the committee before the conference, so keep the research you used for the paper and put it in the binder. You will have your research binder and will know your positions. You will know who you need to get on your side as allies.   Make a list of the most important things for your country. You know what positions you will generally take, so be ready to defend them.  

8)Rules of Procedure/Points and Motions After   watching this video   and checking out our points and motions page , you will have an idea of what to expect. The UN Association of the United States has a   page dedicated to rules of procedure   and a chart that you should print out and put in the binder for reference.

How to Include Your Own Notes

Many conferences do not allow delegates to bring pre-written resolutions. This could create an unfair advantage to some delegations, especially newer ones. That does not mean that you can’t plan well for what they “think” they may write about.   Based off of the positions that will be up for debate and the research the students have completed, here is a list of things they should have in their “ideas” section of the binder.

Main allies Know ahead of time countries who share similar positions Be ready with facts and information for them

Number and Facts Have your counties demographics and economic numbers   If the committee is going to discuss HIV/AIDs then have your country’s data about that separate and ready to use Specific facts from reputable sources are hard to argue against

To get statistics on your country’s demographics, economics, and other vital information, you can go to the   UN member list here . The   CIA World Factbook   is also a good resource. Having factual numbers ready to present during formal sessions and unmoderated caucuses will be powerful during debates. It is hard to argue with facts.

Current global situations MUN is a fluid environment and adapts to what is happening in the world Use this as talking points in a moderated and unmoderated debate

A one-inch three-ring binder should be sufficient for this information. Make sure to get tabs for each section. Every delegate would benefit from having their own binder. Remember, Model UN is an activity designed primarily to help students gain skills they will use to further their academic careers and beyond. Research skills are a large part of that. By making this research binder, you are doing more than just preparing for a conference. You are preparing for a lifetime of the organization.

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

Regulatory Binder

Essential documents.

The ICH GCP Guidelines define Essential Documents as those documents which individually and collectively permit evaluation of the conduct of a trial and the quality of data produced. These documents serve to demonstrate compliance with standards of Good Clinical Practice and with all applicable regulatory requirements. Filing essential documents in a timely manner can greatly assist in the successful management of a clinical trial.

The Regulatory Binder is often the first document reviewed during audits and inspections. Not all the essential documents are available at the start of the study.  Documents can be grouped into those that are generated before study initiation, those that are generated during trial conduct and those that are generated after study completion.

Not all documents have to be filed in one single binder. The Regulatory Binder may sometimes consist of several binders that are stored in the same or different locations. It is important to know where all these documents are located to be able to pull them out when needed in a timely manner.  The Regulatory Binder is referred to synonymously as the Study Files, Investigator Files or Investigator Binder.

Organizing Your Regulatory Binder

Instructions: Create tabs for each section listed below and place the appropriate documents in each corresponding section in a binder. Be sure to label the outside of the binder (cover and spine) with the protocol number, PI name, and study site. Use multiple binders or master binders to maintain documentation if needed.

Anytime information is kept in a master binder, place a note to file (in the section of the Binder) referencing the location of the separate binder.

1.  Site Visit (Monitoring) Log

This provides documentation at the site that the study was monitored and the frequency of monitoring.  The monitor and designated site staff both sign the log to verify the date the monitor was present.  For consecutive days, each day is entered separately.

2.  Delegation of Authority (Responsibilities) Log

This log documents responsibilites assigned to research team members and their dates of involvement in the project.  It helps ensure the appropriate delegation of study related tasks.

3.  Site Personnel Signature Log

This documents the names and provides handwriting samples of all personnel involved in the conduct of the study

4. Study Personnel Education

All personnel involved in research with human subjects are required to complete the following:

Human Subject Protection Training HIPAA Training                         

When adding personnel to the study, they must complete all of the above and their addition must be IRB approved prior to participating in the study.

 4.1  Training Log

This is a record of training provided, e.g. protocol training or other study-specific training of staff.  This should include a site initiation visit (SIV) attendance log.

5. CVs/Financial Disclosures/Investigator Statements

This section should include:

Curricula Vitae, licenses, and certifications for all study staff  Disclosure information, including each  Study Specific Disclosure form  submitted to the IRB.  FDA Form 1572 (if applicable): Date and sign all versions FDA Form 1571 (if applicable): for Investigator initiated INDs Signed investigator agreement (if applicable): for device studies 

6.  Public Registration of Research Studies (PRS)  (If applicable)

All research studies that are applicable clinical trial must be registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as per the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the FDA Amendment Act of 2007, and institutional policy. 

Contact the Georgetown PRS Administrator, Patricia Mazar at [email protected]  to set up a PRS user account.

Note: For commercially funded, multi-center studies, public registration is typically handled by the study sponsor or CRO.

Place the registration receipt in this section for initial registration and for any updates.

7.  Screening/Enrollment Log

This section should include a log of subjects who were screened (and reason for screen failure) and enrolled.  Some studies allow for re-screening of subjects.

8.  Subject Visit Tracking Log

This log tracks all enrolled subjects’ visits, reason for early termination and keeps visits scheduled as per protocol.

9.  Subject Identification Code List

This is a confidential list of the names of all the subjects that provides a link between their identity and their study code to allow the Investigator to reveal the identity of any subject, if necessary.

10.  Consent Forms

This section should include consent form document(s) (all IRB approved and stamped versions) stored in reverse chronological order with the current approved version first.

Place most currently approved consent form in a plastic sleeve  

Note: Any changes to the consent form must be submitted to and approved by the IRB prior to use. Submit consent amendments through  eRIC .

Guidance for consent of Non-English speaking subjects can be found  here .

10.1  HIPAA Forms

(Authorization, Waiver, and/or Research Preparation Purposes)

This section includes all IRB approved and stamped versions of any of the HIPAA forms (as applicable).

HIPAA regulatory information

 11. Protocol

This section should include the protocol (and protocol signature page) and all amendments (and amendment signature page or pages), stored in reverse chronological order with the current approved version first.

Note: Any changes to the protocol must be submitted to and approved by the IRB prior to implementation. Submit amendments through  eRIC .

12.  IRB Federal Wide Assurance Letter

This section should contain the most current IRB assurance letter

13. IRB Approval(s) /Communication

This section should include copies of the original IRB application/submission, IRB approval letters (contingent and final approval), and all correspondence with the IRB (including emails).

It includes  IRB Membership Rosters , Continuing Review Submissions, protocol modifications and DSMB reports and close-out (final study) reports.

Contact the IRB  for a copy of any missing documents.

14. Investigational Product Information (as applicable)

     Investigator’s Brochure (IB)

This section must include all versions of the IB (may be maintained separately with note in section explaining location of IB) and receipt forms. 

Evidence of IRB submission and review of all versions must be maintained.

      Package Insert

For FDA approved agents, file a copy of the package insert.

      Device Manual

Fo device studies this section should have a device information sheet/manual.

15. Study Termination If your research study is being terminated or if the PI is leaving and the study will no longer be continued, inform the IRB through  eRIC . 

16.  Protocol Deviations / Protocol Exceptions

This section should include correspondence relevant to the issue and copies of the documents stored in reverse chronological order with the most current documents first.

Please note that some Sponsor approved waivers may need to be approved by the IRB prior to implementation.

GU IRB Manual-Policy on Reporting Protocol Deviations

CAPA Template (Corrective Action and Prevention Plan)

17. Adverse Events and Unanticipated Problems

This section should include correspondence, copies and acknowledgements of reports for internal AEs and unanticipated problems reported to the IRB and Sponsor and regulatory authorities as applicable.

AE/SAE Log : Adverse events encompass both physical and psychological harms. They can occur in the context of medical, behavioral and social research.

Unanticipated Problem Log : Click  here  for examples of unanticipated problems that do not involve adverse events.

GU IRB Manual-Policy on Reporting Adverse Events and Unanticipated Problems

Submit reportable events through  eRIC .

18. IND Safety Reports

This section should include correspondence (including IRB acknowledgement) and copies of Safety Reports for external  AEs  reported to the IRB. 

19. Advertising/Educational Materials (if applicable)

This section should include: Any IRB approved advertisements, recruitment flyers, written educational, or other materials provided to study participants, stored in reverse chronological order with the most current documents first.

Note: For marketing materials used to recruit through mass media (e.g. newspaper, TV, radio, some internet postings, & etc.) you must contact the Georgetown University Medical Center Communications Office  to ensure logo/branding is appropriate.

20.  Sample Tracking and Shipping  (if applicable)

This section should include a master log that allows tracking of research specimen sample collection, shipment (or transport), and storage, and packing and  shipping training certification  (from Saf-T-Pak or other approved equivalent program).

Shippers or receipts can be placed in this section or in individual subject files.

Note: All biological materials must be handled, stored, and shipped in compliance with FAA and IATA regulations as well as GUMC policies on hazardous materials.

21.  Temperature Logs for Refrigerator/Freezer

Temperature logs document compliance with Protocol /Study Procedures requirements and GCP. 

22. Investigational/Test Article

This section includes:

Shipment records (usually requires site signature of receipt and Sponsor notification of receipt)

Site Accountability Records  (inventory of overall supply of drug/device, promps reordering of supply)

Subject Drug Accountability Records / Device Log (documents the date and quantity of drug/device dispensed to subject and return of drug/device from subject

Blind Break Instructions (instructions for revealing the identity of the treatment, if blinded)

Interactive Voice Response System Instructions (IVRS), if applicable

**Maintain drug accountability in the  Research Pharmacy  over the course of the study; at the trial completion file all records here.

23. Local Lab Certificates/Reference Ranges

For every lab listed on FDA Form 1572, place a copy of (maintain current certifications for duration of study):

Lab certificate(s) and reference ranges (for the duration of study) Lab director’s CV

Note: The above is not required for research labs that perform testing where results will not be shared with subjects or their treatment providers.

 For studies that use MedStar/Georgetown University Hospital Laboratories, click  HERE

24. Correspondence

Please document and maintain all relevant, significant communication from the sponsor, the CRO or monitor in this section.  Study related Newsletters may be placed in this section.

25. Blank Set of Case Report Forms  

26. Notes To File (NTF)

These may include site generated and/or sponsor generated notes to file.  Sponsor generated NTF may be global or site specific.

27. Other Documents

Other necessary approvals (e.g. Radiation Safety Committee)

Place other important study documents in this section. This can include: Certificates of Confidentiality, literature or publications,  correspondence from the FDA or NIH, and other general correspondence.

28.   Additional Tools 

We’d like to hear from you. If you have suggestions, comments, or questions about this regulatory binder, please contact Bronwyn Murray at [email protected] or at 202-687-1350.

The Diary of a Model UN Binder Delegate

Written by Holden Lamberson

Editorial | feature article | mun articles, march 10, 2022, best delegate | bloc controlling | conference research | delegate style | leadership | model un | research | research binder.

I am unapologetically a binder delegate. I am someone who leverages the research that I’ve compiled before a conference to change the flow of debate during committee in a way that benefits my position. While it’s a seldom-used Model UN strategy, let me explain the benefits of why and how you should be a binder delegate.

The key to being a binder delegate is understanding that not all research is created equal. What does this mean? Research allows you to take control and change the debate. If you want to influence the committee, you have to make your research worthwhile to you and the committee as a whole. If the committee wants to talk about climate change, discuss banking, finance, and investment. If the committee wants to talk about refugees, talk about economic development in refugee camps. Do the research. Think outside of the box rather than walk into a committee with the same resolutions that have already been tried and tested. What matters most is that the debate becomes one that promotes your advanced, technical resolutions over the more superficial,  “short term” resolutions that the rest of the room proposes. In a room like that, you’ll be the only one ready to speak about your resolution, your plan, and your ideas as if you’re the expert. That’s because you’ve done your research.

You know what you’re talking about–and the other delegates will know it, and the chairs will know it too. That’s what being a binder delegate is all about.

So how does one become a binder delegate? It all starts with research. I’m researching from the day I get a committee assignment to the first committee session. I’m trying to establish “the Plan”––a committee shaking, groundbreaking plan. Try to force the committee to focus on one of the two topics most high school Model UN delegates fear: banking and macroeconomic policy. A good plan should demonstrate an in-depth understanding of one, if not both, of these ideas for each committee, and you should be able to explain what your plan does and why it is so revolutionary in thirty seconds or less. 

Moreover, your plan should be self-financed, which means no NGO funding. This means asking the hard questions and not stopping until you have excellent answers; this means figuring out how to solve the problems your committee is planning to discuss well before you walk into the committee. For me, it means spending hours pouring over UN recommendations, bank charters, policy reports, and economic papers. If you do all of the preparation beforehand, you’ll be one of the few, if not the only one, to walk into a room where the debate centers on refugees and aid, and the first words to come out of your mouth will be “investment banks…”  From that moment, you will have an edge in the committee. While it’s not a guaranteed formula for becoming the leader in the room, it’s a significant leg up that any skilled delegate can quickly turn into an insurmountable gap between themselves and the rest of the committee.  In practice, having a well-researched, incontrovertible plan before you step foot into committee will help you dominate both inter-and intra- block politics.

When competing within your block, having an irrefutable plan quickly allows you to position yourself to become the central writer of your resolution.

This is crucial to justify and legitimize your position on being the leader in Q & A.

But beyond that, an ironclad, sound, and a feasible plan become the foundation of the block, which makes you, the paper’s creator, the block’s de facto controller and leader. Because my knowledge and skills on the topic of the debate are so ingrained in my block, I made myself necessary for its survival. This influential position has often granted me (dare I say) almost dictatorial control over blocks, without the cost of looking like a “power delegate”.

The advantages of binder delegate style preparation are even more apparent during mergers. A good plan might be two to four multi-pages with heavily intertwined clauses that work off one another to create your resolution. As these clauses are so interwoven and central to your block’s position, you can easily use them as leverage in a merger.  You’ll often find that many of the clauses of the block(s) you are merging with are merely redundant versions of what you’ve already written, meaning your clauses have a better chance than theirs of making it through the merger. Alongside your preparedness comes better writing and more complex clauses, which can make your contributions and cooperation essential to the merger, especially if you remained consistent and utilized the same plan to lead your block from the start of the conference.

These are just a few ways that being a “binder delegate” can give you an edge in committee. While I know it may seem easier to wait until the night before the first session to read your background guide, I promise you the more effort you put into preparing for the committee beforehand will pay off.

Want more great articles?

Sign up to get all the latest news and articles from All-American Model UN. Never more than 3 emails per month.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You May Also Like…

Model UN AMA Episode Two: Addressing Challenges and Strategies in Model UN

Feb 22, 2024

In the latest episode of MUN AMA, a Model UN Coach podcast segment, hosts Frank Pobutkiewicz and Gabby MacKay delve...

Around the Circuit with the Princeton Diplomatic Invitational

Feb 15, 2024

The Revival of Princeton Diplomatic Invitational In the world of Model United Nations, where diplomacy and global...

Model UN Ask Me Anything Episode 1: Understanding Model UN, College Admissions, and MUN without a School Team

Feb 14, 2024

The World of Model United Nations: Insights from the Experts In the fascinating realm of Model United Nations (Model...

Program Director Application

Dec 21, 2023

Job Description All-American Model United Nations is looking for an experienced, student-focused Program Director to...

Associate Program Director Application

Job Description All-American Model United Nations is looking for an experienced, student-focused Associate Program...

There is No Such Thing as the “Perfect Merger”

Oct 17, 2023

In the dynamic world of Model United Nations (MUN), where diplomacy, negotiation, and international relations are...

Join the new Model UN Coach platform for free!

Create a free account on our new Model UN teaching and community platform.

Essential Documents

Essential documents which include regulatory binders (also known as Study Admin File, Investigator Binder, Investigational Site File (ISF), or Study Binder) contain the study specific information and regulatory documentation in a centralized location. It organizes essential study documents and should be easy to access and auditable.  

Contact OCR Regulatory for questions or assistance at [email protected]

Site regulatory binder essentials.

• Penn Reviewing Entities
• Sponsor/CRO
• Protocol/Protocol Amendments and supporting documents
• Informed Consent & HIPAA Authorization  
• Case Report Form Sample
• Investigator’s Brochure /Device Manual 
• FDA Forms as applicable – 1572, sample of labels, FDA correspondence, financial disclosures  
• Lab Documents (CLIA/CAP)  
• Subject Logs (Screening/Enrollment)
• Adverse Event Reports
• Investigational Product
• Monitoring Visits and Logs
• Study personnel (CV, licenses, training, etc.) 
• Delegation of Authority Log
• Unmasking Procedures for Blinded Trials
• Certificates of Confidentiality
• Other study documents as needed

It is preferable that the essential documents are maintained electronically, either through Penn Box  or  Veeva Vault , which both serve as options for electronic Regulatory Binders. Contact OCR for an eTemplate for maintaining the Regulatory Binder in PennBox.

OCR offers downloadable templates with instructions for maintaining regulatory binders on paper.

There are three different templates available within our forms, tools and templates library depending on the study type:

• Study Admin File_Device  Template for developing a study administration file or regulatory binder for a device trial.
• Study Admin File_Social Behavioral  Template for developing a study administration file or regulatory binder for a social behavioral study.
• Study Admin File_Drug  Template for developing a study administration file or regulatory binder for a drug trial.

Sponsor Trial Master File (TMF)

The sponsor essential documents are filed in what is known as the Trial Master File (TMF). The TMF is the collection of documents that will be requested in the case of audit, inspection, or litigation.  It should begin at first inception of a trial when a protocol is being developed and vendors are being selected.  The TMF should be maintained current and complete during the life cycle of the investigation and at least 2 years after last approval of a marketing application (if applicable) or otherwise in accordance with  Penn Policy of 10 years .  

Access to the TMF must be controlled and limited to authorized individuals with role-based access privileges. The storage system utilized for maintaining and archiving the TMF (irrespective of the type of media used) should provide information to tell the story of the trial.  Standard procedures, such as a Trial Master File Plan, should be developed and shared with anyone who accesses the TMF to ensure the TMF has an organization that enables ease of review and document naming conventions that make documents identifiable by type, version, and history.  The industry standard for documents to be retained in a TMF are outlined in the Drug Information Association (DIA) Reference Model . OCR also has a simplified TMF Template that includes key components of a TMF such as core study documents, FDA/regulatory communications, Vendor qualifications, Investigational product records, and database records.  A system that allows for ease of search and retrieval is recommended for maintaining your TMF at Penn Medicine; such as Penn Box or Veeva eTMF . Note: TMFs on computers and shared drives are highly discouraged. 

Crafting the Perfect MUN Research Binder

Riaan Rao • 2023-08-03

Take a quick look at some tips for the prefect MUN research binder!

Preparing in-depth research is crucial for success at Model UN conferences. A well-organised research binder can help you access key facts and arguments quickly during debates. Here are some essential tips to keep in mind:

C OUNTRY I NFORMATION

Gather details about your country's position on relevant issues, UN voting history, and current foreign policy goals. Find resolutions your country has sponsored and statements it has made within committees. Update yourself on any recent political developments that affect your stances.

A LLIES AND R EGIONAL B LOCS

Identify allies that share similar priorities and positions. Look into regional organisations your country belongs to for potential coalition partners. Having a strong voting bloc can amplify your country's voice in committee.

C OMMITTEE B ACKGROUND

Familiarise yourself with your committee's role, mandate, historical accomplishments, and current activities. Understand your country's past involvement to realistically frame your delegation's stances.

Collect relevant data, think tank reports, and treaty provisions related to topics under your committee's purview. Print out essential resolutions, conventions and treaties for quick referencing during debates.

Y OUR C OUNTRY ’ S P OSITION

Outline the key issues and priorities for your delegation based on your research. Note facts and statistics you want to cite during discussions. Keep track of potential compromise solutions.

R ULES OF P ROCEDURE

Include a printed guidelines sheet with key motions and points of order. Having this ready will help you navigate formal procedures smoothly.

L EAVE B LANK N OTES P AGES

The topics under discussion may evolve, so allocate sections for taking your own meeting notes and jotting down new ideas.

Organise materials using labelled dividers and a binder large enough to accommodate extra readings and position papers you compile.

A well-planned MUN research binder can speed up research and is useful for more than the information it contains. Good luck, and have a great MUN!

References:

https://www.wisemee.com/prepare-mun-research-binder/

https://bestdelegate.com/mun-research-made-easy-15-things-every-delegate-should-have-in-their-research-binder/

See More Posts

Night Crisis: An Evening for the Elite

The Night Crisis Guide.

2024-07-09 • Aadya Khanna, Dhiaan Sheth

Mastering the Chaos: Navigating Crisis Committees in a MUN

The crisis committee guide.

2024-07-09 • Mahika Pasad, Jay Mehta

Mastering Moderated and Unmoderated Caucuses: Tips for MUN Success

The best caucus guide for an MUN!

2024-07-09 • Aditi Paranjape

Don Bosco International Model United Nations 2024

Don Bosco International School, Nathalal Parekh Marg, Matunga, Mumbai - 400019

Copyright © 2024 DBIS, Inc. All rights reserved.

Quick Links

Press releases

Reach out to us

[email protected]

Important reads for delegates

Study guides

Guide to a MUN

Top tips for making the most out of Binder

Emma Karoune

Sarah Gibson

Sophia Batchelor

Martina Vilas

We think research reproducibility is super important! Reproducible research is necessary to ensure scientific outputs can be trusted and built upon in future work. An important aspect of reproducible research is computational reproducibility. Binder is a great tool to help you do this easily. Here we offer some top tips so you can make the most out of Binder.

If you have never used Binder before, our workshop is a great opportunity to get you started. You will be able to take some of your own content (in a R or Jupyter Notebook, or scripts that can be run in the terminal) and prepare it so that it can be used and reproduced by others on mybinder.org . You don't need to be experienced with the command line as all of the material is browser-based.

All our resources are open and easily accessible on Github (see our resources for R here , python here and julia here ) so you can teach yourself, if you want.

By Emma Karoune, Sarah Gibson, Martina Vilas, and Sophia Batchelor, written on behalf of The Turing Way Community.

This guide is part of the  Research Software Camp: research accessibility  web content series. 

1. Learn more about reproducible research.

Making reproducible research 'too easy not to do' is the ultimate aim of The Turing Way . We are passionate about enabling this to happen and our Binder workshop is a great example of the work we are doing to get there.

Our book offers guidance on reproducible research and has many helpful guides to show you how to build a reproducible workflow.

But what is reproducible research?

We define reproducible research as work that can be independently recreated from the same data and the same code that the original team used.

But there are many different types of reproducibility, and even more different ways to define the term reproducible from replicable, robust and generalisable, as it is very dependent on what discipline you are in to how these terms are used, Barba (2018) .

Victoria Stodden (2014) has suggested the following distinctions for reproducibility:

• Computational reproducibility : When detailed information is provided about code, software, hardware and implementation details.
• Empirical reproducibility : When detailed information is provided about non-computational empirical scientific experiments and observations. In practice, this is enabled by making the data and details of how it was collected freely available.
• Statistical reproducibility : When detailed information is provided, for example, about the choice of statistical tests, model parameters, and threshold values. This mostly relates to pre-registration of study design to prevent p-value hacking and other manipulations.

If you want to find out more about definitions of reproducibility, then take a look at our section on this topic here .

2. Using Binder for writing articles with research compendia.

To publish reproducible research, you need to communicate the whole research project with the reader. This cannot be done solely through the text of a research article. You need to provide a link to a research compendium in your articles so that the reader has access to your data, code and an explanation of how you have conducted the research.

So a research compendia is a comprehensive set of files that combines all components of a project. The most basic research compendia is a set of folders that provides this information in an open repository.

However, you can also create an executable research compendia that captures all the digital parts of the research project (code, data, text, figures) and all the information on how to obtain the results. The computing environment is described fully to show how to automatically generate the results. Additionally, there is a README file describing what the compendium is about and a LICENSE file with info on how it can be used.

Binder is one way to make an executable research compendia. So learning how to do this can enable you to publish reproducible research and allow others to review, understand, teach and reproduce your research.

If you want to find out more about research compendia, you can check out the section in The Turing Way here.

3. Get started with Github.

For launching Binder, you need to host your repository on Github or another open access online repository such as Zenodo.

If you have not used Git or Github before it can be a bit daunting. Git is the version control system that Github is built around. Using Github does not require any command line experience as it has a fairly friendly web browser interface. All of the Binder workshop, and instructions, use Github to make it easier to set up.

Github does take some getting used to as there are certain processes such as knowing how to set up a repository or adding files and folders that would help you to access the Binder workshop more easily. We suggest that you spend a bit of time getting used to Github before the workshop or before you try our instruction yourself. You can use the 'Getting started with Github' section in The Turing Way .

If you do want more information about version control and Git, then The Turing Way also has sections on those too!

4. Don't forget to make your repository public.

This is the most common mistake that new users of Binder make!

Binder was designed to use public files. There is no way to access files, which are not public from mybinder.org . You should consider all information in your Binder as public, meaning that:

• There should be no passwords, tokens, keys, etc in your GitHub repository.
• You should not type passwords into a Binder running on mybinder.org .
• You should not upload your private SSH key or API token to a running Binder.

The only way to support access to private files, would be to create a local deployment of BinderHub where you can decide the security trade-offs yourselves.

5. You can use any language you want.

Binder is very inclusive by allowing you to use any coding language that you want. This means you don't have to learn any new type of script. You can take existing data and code, and binderize it straight away.

• You just have to define the language of your choice such as Python, R or Julia.
• If a language is not officially supported by a build pack, it can often be installed with a postBuild script. This will run arbitrary bash commands, and can be used to download / install a language.
• It may also be possible to combine multiple languages in a single environment. We recommend that you take a look at the Multi-Language Demo repository for some inspiration.

Takeaway message

Binder is a fantastic tool that can help you to reach your reproducible research goal. We are very happy for you to use all our resources to help you learn all about it.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of binder in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

binder noun [C] ( COVER )

• A carefully kept logbook (a three-ring binder with pages for sketches and notes of your observations) will become a valued resource .
• Create a binder just for holiday recipes-foods you made, how you tweaked the seasonings , what could have used more or less time in the oven , recipes you wanted to try but didn't.
• acknowledgment
• acknowledgments phrase
• bibliographical
• bibliographically
• concordance
• non-biographical

binder noun [C] ( JOB )

• anthologist
• co-publisher
• editor-at-large
• illustrator
• proofreader
• sensitivity reader
• vanity press

binder noun [C] ( MACHINE )

• all-terrain vehicle
• Caterpillar tractor
• milking machine
• ploughshare

You can also find related words, phrases, and synonyms in the topics:

binder noun [C] ( SUBSTANCE )

• Our food has no artificial or processed ingredients , no low-cost fillers or binders.
• Lump charcoal is a pure form of charcoal and is preferred by many purists who dislike artificial binders used to hold briquettes in their shape .
• Scotch tape
• self-adhesive

binder noun [C] ( TIGHT MATERIAL )

• Patients are required to wear breast binders for three to six weeks to hold the implant in place during the healing process .
• auditory brainstem implant
• bioengineer
• bioengineering
• in a cast phrase
• in plaster phrase
• sticking plaster
• ventricular assist device
• walking frame

binder | American Dictionary

Binder | business english, examples of binder, translations of binder.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

long weekend

Saturday and Sunday with at least one extra day added, either Friday or Monday.

It’s not really my thing (How to say you don’t like something)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• binder (COVER)
• binder (JOB)
• binder (MACHINE)
• binder (SUBSTANCE)
• binder (TIGHT MATERIAL)
• American    Noun
• Business    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

To add binder to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add binder to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

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

• Articles with Attitude
• Open access
• Published: 14 April 2023
• Volume 13 , pages 510–519, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Stefan Partelow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-4005 1 , 2  

19k Accesses

9 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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 communicating 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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reflections on Methodological Issues

Looking Back

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The development of ‘frameworks’ is at present probably the most common strategy in the field of natural resources management to achieve integration and interdisciplinarity. Mollinga , 2008

…it is not clear what the role of a scientific framework should be, and relatedly, what makes for a successful scientific framework. Ban and Cox, 2017

Introduction

Frameworks are important research tools across nearly all fields of science. They are critically important for structuring empirical inquiry and theoretical development in the environmental social sciences, governance research and practice, the sustainability sciences and fields of social-ecological systems research in tangent with the associated disciplines of those fields (Binder et al. 2013 ; Pulver et al. 2018 ; Colding and Barthel 2019 ). Many well-established frameworks are regularly applied to collect new data or to structure entire research programs such as the Ecosystem Services (ES) framework (Potschin-Young et al. 2018 ), the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ), Earth Systems Governance (ESG) (Biermann et al. 2010 ), the Driver-Impact-Pressure-State-Response (DIPSR) framework, and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework. 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 Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al. 2015 ) and the Global Sustainable Development Report’s transformational levers and fields (UN 2019 ).

Despite the countless frameworks, it is not always clear how a framework can be developed or applied (Ban and Cox 2017 ; Partelow 2018 ; Nagel and Partelow 2022 ). Development may occur through empirically backed synthesis or by scholars based on their own knowledge, values, or interests. These diverse development pathways do, however, result in common trends. The structure of most frameworks is the identification of a set of concepts and their general relationships — often in the form box-and-arrow diagrams — that are loosely defined or unspecified. This hallmark has both benefits and challenges. On one hand, this is arguably the purpose of frameworks, to structure the basic ideas of theory or conceptual thinking, and if they were more detailed they would be models. On the other hand, there is often a “black box” nature to frameworks. It is often unclear why some sets of concepts and relationships are chosen for integration into frameworks, and others not. As argued below, these choices are often the result of the positionality of the framework’s creators. Publications of frameworks, furthermore, often lack descriptions of their value and potential uses compared to other frameworks or analytical tools that exist in the field.

Now shifting focus to how frameworks are applied. Some frameworks provide measureable indicators as the key variables in the framework, but many only suggest general concepts. This creates the need to link concepts and their relationships to data through other more tangible indicators. Methods to measure such indicators will also be needed in new empirical studies. These methodological and study design steps necessary to associate data to framework concepts is often referred to as “operationalizing” a framework. However, without guidance on how to do this, scholars are often left with developing their own strategies, which can lead to heterogeneous and idiosyncratic methods and data. These challenges can be referred to as methodological gaps (Partelow 2018 ), where the details of how to move from concept to indicator to measurement to data transformation, are not always detailed in a way that welcomes replicability or learning. This is not necessarily a problem if the purpose of a framework is to only guide the analysis of individual cases or synthesis activities in isolation, for example to inform local management, but it hinders meta-analyses, cross-case learning and data interpretability for others.

In this article, a brief overview of framework definitions and current synthesis literature are reviewed in the “ What is a framework? ” section. This is coupled with the argument that frameworks often lack clarity in their development and application because their positioning within a theory of science is unclear. In the “ Mechanisms of framework development and use: a meta-framework ” section, a meta-framework is proposed to assist in clarifying the four major levers with which frameworks are developed and applied: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) hypothesizing, and (4) application. The meta-framework aims to position individual frameworks into a theory of science, which can enable scholars to take a conceptual “step back” in order to view how their engagement with a framework contributes to their broader scientific goal and field. Two case studies of different frameworks are provided to explore how the meta-framework can aid in comparing them. This is followed by a discussion of what makes a good framework, along with explicit guiding points for the use of frameworks in research and policy practice.

What is a framework?

The definition and purpose of a framework is likely to vary across disciplines and thematic fields (Cox et al. 2016 ). There is no universal definition of a framework, but it is useful to provide a brief overview of different definitions for orientation. The Cambridge Dictionary states that frameworks are “a supporting structure around which something can be built; a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide something.” Schlager ( 2007 , 293) states that “frameworks provide a foundation for inquiry,” and Cumming ( 2014 , 5) adds that this “does not necessarily depend on deductive logic to connect different ideas.” Importantly, Binder et al., ( 2013 , 2) note that “a framework provides a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices,” emphasizing the normative or inherently subjective logic to framework development. A core theme being plurality and connectivity. Similarly, McGinnis and Ostrom ( 2014a , 1) define frameworks as “the basic vocabulary of concepts and terms that may be used to construct the kinds of causal explanations expected of a theory. Frameworks organize diagnostic, descriptive, and prescriptive inquiry.” In a review comparing ten commonly used frameworks in social-ecological systems (SES) research, Binder et al., ( 2013 , 1) state that frameworks are useful for developing “a common language, to structure research on SES, and to provide guidance toward a more sustainable development of SES.” In a similar review, Pulver et al., ( 2018 , 1) suggest that frameworks “assist scholars and practitioners to analyze the complex, nonlinear interdependencies that characterize interactions between biophysical and social arenas and to navigate the new epistemological, ontological, analytical, and practical horizons of integrating knowledge for sustainability solutions.” It is important to recognize that the above claims often suggest the dualistic or bridging positions held by frameworks, in both theory building and for guiding empirical observations. However, there is relatively little discussion in the above literature on how frameworks act as bridging tools within a theory of science or how frameworks add value as positioning tools in a field.

Every framework has a position, meaning it is located within a specific context of a scientific field. As positioning tools, frameworks seem to “populate the scientist’s world with a set of conceptual objects and (non-causal) relationships among them,” shaping (and sometimes limiting) the way we think about problems and potential solutions (Cox et al. 2016 , 47). Thus, using a specific framework helps in part to position the work of a researcher in a field and its related concepts, theories and paradigms.

Four factors can be considered to evaluate the positioning of a framework: (a) who developed it, (b) the values being put forth by those researchers, (c) the research questions engaged with, and (d) the field in which it is embedded. For example, the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) (Ostrom 2009 ) was developed by (a) Elinor Ostrom who developed the framework studying common-pool resource and public goods governance from the 1960s until the 2000s. Ostrom’s overall goal was (b) to examine the hindering and enabling conditions for governance to guide the use and provision common goods towards sustainability outcomes. Her primary research questions (c) related to collective action theory, unpacking how and why people cooperate with each other or not. The field her work is embedded in (d) is an interdisciplinary mix between public policy, behavioral and institutional economics. Scholars who use Ostrom’s SESF today, carry this history with them and therefore position themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, as part of this research landscape as systems thinkers and interdisciplinarians, even if they have other scholarly positions.

Frameworks are positioned within a theory of science. Understanding this positioning can guide scholars in comprehending how their engagement with frameworks contributes to the overall advancement of their field. To do this, taking a conceptual “step back” is necessary, to distinguish between different levels of theory in science. From the conceptually broadest to the most empirically specific, we can identify the following levels of theory: paradigms, frameworks, specific theories, models/archetypes and cases (Table 1 ). Knowledge production processes flow up and down these levels of theory. For example, as argued by Kuhn ( 1962 ), the purpose of a scientific field is to advance its paradigm. Thus, the study of empirical observations (e.g., case studies) — and the development of models or theories resulting from those data — are aimed at advancing the overarching paradigm. Such paradigms could be conservation, democracy, sustainable development or social-ecological systems.

There is a need to connect cases, models and specific theory up to the overall paradigms of a field to make aggregate knowledge gains. Here, the role of frameworks becomes more clear, as bridging tools that enable connections between levels of knowledge. From the top down, frameworks can specify paradigms with more tangible conceptual features and relationships, which can then guide empirical inquiry. For example, the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework (Smeets and Weterings 1999 ; Ness, Anderberg, and Olsson 2010 ) specifies how to evaluate policy options and their effects by focusing on the five embedded concepts in a relational order. Scholars can then generate more specific indicators and methods to measure the five specified features of the framework, and their relationships, to generate empirical insights that now have a direct link to the paradigm of sustainable policy development via the framework.

Furthermore, frameworks can also emerge from the bottom up, by distilling empirical data across cases and thus creating a knowledge bridge of more specified conceptual features and relationships that connect to a paradigm. In both top-down and bottom-up mechanism, frameworks can play a vital role in synthesizing and communicating ideas among scholars in a field — from empirical data to a paradigm. A challenge may be, however, that multiple frameworks have emerged attempting to specify the core conceptual features and relationships in a paradigm. A mature scientific field is likely to have many frameworks to guide research and debate. There is, however, a lack of research and tools available to compare frameworks and their added value.

Beyond their use as positioning tools, frameworks make day-to-day science easier. They can guide researchers in designing new empirical research by indicating which core concepts and relationships are of interest to be measured and compared. Scientific fields also need common fires to huddle around, meaning that we need reference points to initiate scholarly debates, coordinate disparate empirical efforts and to communicate findings and novel advancements through a common language (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ; Ban and Cox 2017 ). As such, frameworks are useful for synthesis research, focusing the attention of reviews and meta-analyses around core sets of concepts and relationships.

There is, however, a tension between frameworks that aim to capture complexity and those that aim to simplify core principles. Complexity oriented frameworks often advance systems thinking at the risk of including too many variables. They often have long lists of variables which makes empirical orientation and synthesis difficult. On the other hand, simplification frameworks face the challenge of leaving important things out, with the benefit of clarifying what may be important and giving clear direction.

From a more critical perspective, the “criteria for comparing frameworks are not well developed,” (Schlager, 2007 , 312), and the positionality of frameworks has not been rigorously explored outside of smaller studies. Nonetheless, numerous classifications or typologies of frameworks within specific fields have been suggested (Table 2 ), although not with reference to positionality (Spangenberg 2011 ; Binder et al. 2013 ; Cumming 2014 ; Schlager 2007 ; Ness et al. 2007 ; Potschin-Young et al. 2018 ; Cox et al. 2021 ; Louder et al. 2021 ; Chofreh and Goni 2017 ; Alaoui et al. 2022 ; Tapio and Willamo 2008 ). These studies point to the question of: what makes a good framework? Are there certain quality criteria that make some frameworks more useful than others? There has undoubtedly been a rise in the number of frameworks, but as expressed by Ban and Cox ( 2017 , 2), “it is not clear what the role of a scientific framework should be, and relatedly, what makes for a successful scientific framework. Although there are many frameworks […] there is little discussion on what their scientific role ought to be, other than providing a common scientific language.” The meta-framework presented below serves as a tool for answering these questions and provides guidance for developing and implementing frameworks in a range of settings.

Mechanisms of framework development and use: a meta-framework

This section presents a meta-framework detailing the mechanisms of framework development and use (Fig. 1 ). The meta-framework illustrates the role of frameworks as bridging tools for knowledge synthesis and communication. Therefore, the purpose of the meta-framework is to demonstrate how the mechanisms of framework development and use act as levers of knowledge flow across levels within a theory of science, doing so by enabling the communication and synthesis of knowledge. Introducing the meta-framework has two parts, outlined below.

A meta-framework outlining the central role frameworks play in scientific advancement through their development and use. In the center, frameworks provide two core bridging values: knowledge synthesis and knowledge communication. Three modes of logical reasoning contribute to framework development: induction, deduction and abduction. Frameworks are used and developed through four mediating processes: (1) empirical generalization, (2) theoretical fitting, (3) application, and (4) hypothesizing

First, the meta-framework visualizes the levels along the scale of scientific theory including paradigms, frameworks, specific theory and empirical observations, introduced above. Along this scale, three mechanisms of logical reasoning are typical: induction, deduction, and abduction. Induction is a mode of logical reasoning based on sets of empirical observations, which, when patterns within those observations emerge, can inform more generalized theory formation. Induction, in its pure form, is reasoning without prior assumptions about what we think is happening. In contrast, deduction is a mode of logical reasoning based on testing a claim or hypothesis, often based on a body of theory, against an observation to infer whether or not a claim is true. In contrast to induction, which always leads to probable or fuzzy conclusions, deductive logic provides true or false conclusions. A third mode of logical reasoning is abduction. Abduction starts with a single or limited set of observations, and assumes the most likely cause as a conclusion. Abduction can only provide probable conclusions. Knowledge claims from all three modes of logical reasoning are part of the nexus of potential framework creation or modification.

Second, the meta-framework has four iterative mediating processes that directly enable the development and/or application of frameworks (Fig. 1 ). Two of the four mediating processes relate to framework development: (1) empirical generalization and (2) theoretical fitting. The other two relate to framework application: (3) hypothesizing, and (4) application (Fig. 1 , Table 3 ). The details of the specific mediating pathways are outlined in Table 3 , including the processes involved in each. There are numerous potential benefits and challenges associated with each (Table 3 ).

The value of a meta-framework

The presented meta-framework (Fig. 1 ) allows us to assess the values different frameworks can provide. If a framework provides a novel synthesis of key ideas or new developments in a field, and communicates those insights well in its composition, it likely adds notable value. If a framework coordinates scientific inquiry across the 1 or more of the four mediating processes, it likely acts as an important gatekeeper and boundary object for what may otherwise be disparate or tangential research. If it contributes substantial advances in 3 or 4 of the mediating processes, the value of the framework is likely higher.

The meta-framework can further help identify the positioning of framework such as the type of logical reasoning processes used to create it, as well as help clarify the role of a framework along the scale of knowledge production (i.e., from data to paradigm). It might be clear, for example, what paradigm or specific theory a framework contributes to. The meta-framework can add value by guiding the assessment of how frameworks fit into the bigger picture of knowledge contribution in their field. Furthermore, many scholars and practitioners are interested in developing new frameworks. The meta-framework outlines the mechanisms that can be considered in creating the framework as well as help developers of new frameworks communicate how their frameworks add value. For example, to link empirical data collection to theoretical work in their field.

The meta-framework can help compare frameworks, to assess strengths and weaknesses in terms of their positioning and knowledge production mechanisms. It can also help elucidate the need for, or value of, new frameworks. This challenge is noted by Cumming ( 2014 , 18) in the field of social-ecological systems, reflecting that “the tendency of researchers to develop “new” frameworks without fully explaining how they relate to other existing frameworks and what new elements they 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 provided. The first example features the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework developed by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) (Box 1 ) (Smeets and Weterings 1999 ; Ness, Anderberg, and Olsson 2010 ). The DPSIR framework exemplifies a framework developed from the top-down (theoretical fitting) approach, to better organize the policy goal and paradigm of environmental sustainability to the indicators collected by EU member states. The second example highlights the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) developed by Elinor Ostrom (Box 2 ) (Ostrom 2009 ; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014a ). The SESF exemplifies a framework developed from the bottom up (empirical generalization) to aggregate data into common variables to enable data standardization and comparison towards theory building to improve environmental governance. In the case examples (Box 1 ; Box 2 ), we can see the value of both frameworks from different perspectives. The examples briefly illustrate how the positionality of each framework dictates how others use them to produce knowledge towards a paradigm. In the case of the DPSIR framework, from the top-down towards a policy goal, and with the SESF, from the bottom-up towards a theoretical goal.

Drivers – Pressures – State – Impact - Response (DPSIR) framework

Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF)

Discussion and directions forward

Frameworks are commons objects to huddle around in academic and practitioner communities, providing identity and guiding our effort. They focus scholarly attention on important issues, stimulate cognitive energy and provide fodder for discussion. However, reflection on the role and purpose of the frameworks we use needs to be a more common practice in science. The proposed meta-framework aims to showcase the role of frameworks as boundary objects that connect ideas and concepts to data in constructive and actionable ways, enabling knowledge to be built up and aggregated within scientific fields through using common languages and concepts (Mollinga 2008 ; Klein 1996 ).

Boundary objects such as frameworks can be especially important for inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, where there may be few prior shared points of conceptual understanding or terminology beyond a problem context. Mollinga ( 2008 , 33) reflects that “frameworks are typical examples of boundary objects, building connections between the worlds of science and that of policy, and between different knowledge domains,” and that “the development of frameworks is at present probably the most common strategy in the field of natural resources management to achieve integration and interdisciplinarity,” (Mollinga, 2008 , 31). They are, however, critically important for both disciplinary specific fundamental research, as well as for bridging science-society gaps through translating often esoteric academic concepts and findings into digestible and often visual objects. For example, the DPSIR framework (Box 1 ) attempts to better organize the analysis of environmental indicators for policy evaluation processes in the EU. Furthermore, Partelow et al., ( 2019 ) and Gurney et al., ( 2019 ) both use Ostrom’s SESF (Box 2 ) as a boundary object at the science-society interface to visually communicate systems thinking and social-ecological interactions to fishers and coastal stakeholders involved in local management decision-making.

An important feature of frameworks is that the very contestation over their nature is perhaps their main value. A framework can only be an effective boundary object if it catalyzes deliberation and scholarly debate — thus contestation over what it is and its value is seeded into the toolbox and identity of a scholarly field. Although most frameworks are likely to have shortcomings, flaws or controversial features, the fact that they motivate engagement around common problems and stimulate scholarly engagement is a value of its own. In doing so, frameworks often become symbols of individual and community identity in contested spaces. This is evidenced in how frameworks are often used to stamp our research as valid, relevant and important to the field, even if done passively. Citing a framework both communicates the general purpose of what a scholar is attempting to achieve to others, and orients science towards a common synthetic object for future knowledge synthesis and debate. These positioning actions are essential for science and practitioner communities to understand a research or policy project, its aims and assumptions. Historically, disciplines have provided this value – signaling the problems, methods and theories one is likely to engage with. Frameworks can act as tools for bridging disciplines, helping to catalyze interdisciplinary engagement (Mollinga 2008 ; Klein 1996 ). As many scientific communities shift focus towards solving real-world problems (e.g., climate change, gender equality), tools that can help scientists’ cooperate and communicate, such as a framework, will continue to play a vital role in achieving knowledge co-production goals.

Guiding points for framework engagement

An aim of this article is not only to reflect on the purpose, value and positioning of frameworks, but to provide some take-away advice for engaging with frameworks in current or future work. Over the course of this article, the question of “What makes a good framework?” has been explored. The meta-framework outlines mechanisms of useful frameworks and can help understand the positioning of frameworks. Nonetheless, more detailed guiding points can be specified for both the use and development of frameworks going forward. A series of guiding points are outlined in Table 4 , generated from the literature cited throughout this article, feedback from colleagues and personal experiences applying and developing numerous frameworks. The guiding points focus on the two types of mediating processes, framework development and use (Table 4 ).

In conclusion, we need to know our academic tools in order make the best use of them in our own research, practice and knowledge communities. Frameworks have gained substantial popularity for the communication and synthesis of academic ideas, and as tools we all have the ability to create and perhaps the responsibility to steward. However, frameworks have struggled to find roots in a theory of science which grounds their contributions in relation to other scientific tools such as models, specific theories and empirical data. There is also a lack of discussion about what makes a good framework and how to apply frameworks in a way to makes those applications of integrative value to an overall community of scholars positioned around it. The meta-framework provided in this article offers insights into how to understand the purpose and positionality of frameworks, as well as the mechanisms for understanding the creation and application of frameworks. The meta-framework further allows for the comparison of frameworks to assess their value.

Alaoui A, Barão L, Ferreira CSS, Hessel R (2022) An Overview of sustainability assessment frameworks in agriculture. Land 11(4):1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040537

Article   Google Scholar  

Ban NC, Cox M (2017) Advancing social-ecological research through teaching: summary, observations, and challenges. Ecol Soc 22(1):1–3

Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B, Zondervan R (2010) Earth system governance: a research framework. Int Environ Agreem Polit 10(4):277–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3

Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Comparison of Frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(4):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426

Chofreh AG, Goni FA (2017) Review of frameworks for sustainability implementation. Sustain Dev 25(3):180–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1658

Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10598-240102

Cox M, Gurney GG, Anderies JM, Coleman E, Darling E, Epstein G, Frey UJ (2021) Lessons learned from synthetic research projects based on the ostrom workshop frameworks. Ecol Soc 26(1)

Cox M, Villamayor-tomas S, Epstein G, Evans L, Ban NC, Fleischman F, Nenadovic M, Garcia-lopez G (2016) Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance. Glob Environ Chang 39(January):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.011

Cumming GS (2014) Theoretical Frameworks for the analysis of social-ecological systems. In: Sakai S, Umetsu C (eds) Social-Ecological Systems in Transition . Springer, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54910-9

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie 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 systems framework for conservation monitoring: lessons from a multi-country coral reef program. Biol Conserv 240(August). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108298

Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions (University of Chicago Press)

Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities . University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville and London

Google Scholar  

Louder E, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, Bednarek AT (2021) A Synthesis of the frameworks available to guide evaluations at the interface of environmental science on policy and practice. Environ Sci Policy 116(July 2020):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.006

McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014a) Social-Ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230

Mollinga PP (2008) In: Evers H-D, Gerke S, Mollinga P, Schetter C (eds) The rational organisation of dissent: boundary concepts, boundary objects and boundary settings in the interdisciplinary Study of Natural Resources Management. University of Bonn, Bonn

Nagel B, Partelow S (2022) A methodological guide for applying the ses framework: a review of quantitative approaches. Ecol Soc

Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi-Level DPSIR framework. Geoforum 41(3):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005

Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Partelow S (2018) A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications and challenges. Ecol Soc

Partelow S, Fujitani M, Soundararajan V, Schlüter A (2019) Transforming the social-ecological systems framework into a knowledge exchange and deliberation tool for comanagement. Ecol Soc 24(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10724-240115

Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C (2018) Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015

Pulver S, Ulibarri N, Sobocinski KL, Alexander SM, Johnson ML, Mccord PF (2018) Frontiers in socio-environmental research: components, connections, scale, and context. Ecol Soc 23(3)

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

Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. In: Bosch P, Büchele M, Gee D (eds) European Environment Agency (EEA) , vol 50. European Environment Agency, Copenhagan

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability Science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270

Tapio P, Willamo R (2008) Developing Interdisciplinary environmental frameworks. Ambio 37(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[125:DIEF]2.0.CO;2

UN (2019) Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Michael Cox and Achim Schlüter for their helpful feedback on previous versions of the manuscript and the ideas within it. I am grateful to the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) in Bremen, and the Center for Life Ethics at the University of Bonn for support.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany

Stefan Partelow

Center for Life Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Partelow .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declares that he has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Partelow, S. What is a framework? Understanding their purpose, value, development and use. J Environ Stud Sci 13 , 510–519 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w

Download citation

Accepted : 29 March 2023

Published : 14 April 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-023-00833-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Theory of science
• Methodology
• Social science
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Words and phrases

Personal account.

• Access or purchase personal subscriptions
• Get our newsletter
• Save searches
• Set display preferences

Institutional access

Sign in with library card

Sign in with username / password

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

Sign in as administrator on Oxford Academic

binder noun

• Hide all quotations

What does the noun binder mean?

There are 23 meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun binder , one of which is labelled obsolete. See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence.

binder has developed meanings and uses in subjects including

Entry status

OED is undergoing a continuous programme of revision to modernize and improve definitions. This entry has not yet been fully revised.

How common is the noun binder ?

How is the noun binder pronounced?

British english, u.s. english, where does the noun binder come from.

Earliest known use

Old English

The earliest known use of the noun binder is in the Old English period (pre-1150).

binder is formed within English, by derivation.

Etymons: bind v. , ‑er suffix 1 .

Nearby entries

• binbag, n. 1970–
• Binche, n. 1865–
• bind, n. Old English–
• bind, v. Old English–
• bindaas, adj. 1981–
• bin day, n. 1946–
• bindbalk, n. c1425
• bindcorn, n. 1574–77
• bind-days, n. 1664–1706
• binded, adj. 1646
• binder, n. Old English–
• binder twine, n. 1890–
• bindery, n. 1810–
• bindi, n. 1872–
• bindi-eye, n. 1911–
• binding, n. a1240–
• binding, adj. c1384–
• binding agent, n. 1933–
• binding copy, n. 1936–
• binding energy, n. 1932–
• binding-joist, n. 1679–

Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary

To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content.

Meaning & use

Pronunciation, compounds & derived words, entry history for binder, n..

binder, n. was first published in 1887; not yet revised.

binder, n. was last modified in June 2024.

Revision of the OED is a long-term project. Entries in oed.com which have not been revised may include:

• corrections and revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
• new senses, phrases, and quotations which have been added in subsequent print and online updates.

Revisions and additions of this kind were last incorporated into binder, n. in June 2024.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1887)

• Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

• View binder in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for binder, n.

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for binder, n., browse entry.

Look up a word, learn it forever.

Other forms: binders

A binder is a kind of notebook meant to hold loose papers together. You might have a binder for each of the classes you're taking.

One type of binder has three metal rings that keep papers securely in place, and hard plastic covers to protect them from being bent or torn. You can also use the word binder when you're talking about a sticky or adhesive substance, or anything that binds two items together. The Old English root is bindere , "a person who binds," from bindan , "to tie up."

• noun something used to tie or bind synonyms: ligature see more see less type of: ligament any connection or unifying bond
• noun a machine that cuts grain and binds it in sheaves synonyms: reaper binder see more see less type of: harvester , reaper farm machine that gathers a food crop from the fields
• noun holds loose papers or magazines synonyms: ring-binder see more see less type of: protection , protective cover , protective covering a covering that is intend to protect from damage or injury
• noun something used to bind separate particles together or facilitate adhesion to a surface see more see less type of: adhesive , adhesive agent , adhesive material a substance that unites or bonds surfaces together

Sign up now (it’s free!)

Whether you’re a teacher or a learner, vocabulary.com can put you or your class on the path to systematic vocabulary improvement..

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of binder noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

• a ring binder
• Subscribe today and get a free binder with your first issue.

Want to learn more?

Find out which words work together and produce more natural-sounding English with the Oxford Collocations Dictionary app. Try it for free as part of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app.