Editing Symbolic interactionism (section)

===Framework and theories===
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{{efn|see: Stryker and Vryan (2006) for a clear distinction between the two as it pertains to [[Interactionism|interactionist]]-inspired conceptualizations.}}<ref>{{cite book|title=Handbook of Social Psychology|last1=Stryker|first1=Sheldon|last2=Vryan|first2=Kevin D.|date=January 2006|isbn=978-0-387-32515-6|pages=3–28|chapter=The Symbolic Interactionist Frame|doi=10.1007/0-387-36921-X_1|issn=1389-6903|access-date=2018-09-22|chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227124775|series=Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research}}</ref> and 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 [[Sheldon Stryker]],<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last=Stryker|first=Sheldon|date=1968|title=Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research|journal=Journal of Marriage and Family|volume=30|issue=4|pages=558–64|doi=10.2307/349494|jstor=349494}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stryker|first=Sheldon|date=January 1994|title=Identity theory: Its development, research base, and prospects|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285539542|journal=Studies in Symbolic Interaction|volume=16|pages=9–20|via=ResearchGate}}</ref> as well as Peter Burke and colleagues,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Burke|first=Peter J.|date=1980|title=The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective|journal=Social Psychology Quarterly|volume=43|issue=1|pages=18–29|doi=10.2307/3033745|jstor=3033745}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Burke|first1=Peter J.|last2=Reitzes|first2=Donald C.|date=1981|title=The link between identity and role performance|journal=Social Psychology Quarterly|volume=44|issue=2|pages=83–92|doi=10.2307/3033704|jstor=3033704|s2cid=16041737}}</ref> 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.