<P> Some critiques of symbolic interactionism are based on the assumption that it is a theory , and the critiques apply the criteria for a `` good '' theory to something that does not claim to be a theory . Some critics find the symbolic interactionist framework too broad and general when they are seeking specific theories . Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical framework rather than a theory ( see Stryker and Vryan , 2003 , for a clear distinction between the two as it pertains to interactionist - inspired conceptualizations ) can be assessed on the basis of effective conceptualizations . The theoretical framework , as with any theoretical framework , is vague when it comes to analyzing empirical data or predicting outcomes in social life . As a framework rather than a theory , many scholars find it difficult to use . Interactionism being a framework rather than a theory makes it impossible to test interactionism in the manner that a specific theoretical claim about the relationship between specific variables in a given context allows . Unlike the symbolic interactionist framework , the many theories derived from symbolic interactionism , such as role theory and the versions of Identity Theory developed by Stryker , and Burke and colleagues , clearly define concepts and the relationships between them in a given context , thus allowing for the opportunity to develop and test hypotheses . Further , especially among Blumerian processual interactionists , a great number of very useful conceptualizations have been developed and applied in a very wide range of social contexts , types of populations , types of behaviors , and cultures and subcultures . </P>
symbolic interactionism is the basis for which theoretical model
role theory versions of Identity Theory