Abstract Health Systems Research (HSR) has witnessed significant progress in theory, methodology and practice over the last two decades. The complexity of health systems has allowed for diverse lenses for HSR. However, given the absence of dialogue between the different streams of HSR, the diversity of this field, perhaps its greatest strength, is turning out to be quite the challenge.  Without a common language that enables researcher interaction and critical examination of the field, diversity can easily turn into a din. To overcome this confusion evidence-based policy making requires tools that can assess the diverse evidence generated for designing systems coherent with the desired values and principles.   Hence, we need a common research framework for HSR, to understand, describe and explain the systems' structure and functioning, including observed and projected processes of change, across streams. It should be able to make sense of the formulation of HSR, allowing diverse research paradigms their appropriate place in HSR, and make them talk to each other rather than against each other.   This study, therefore, presents the Dialogic Health Systems Research Framework (DHSRF), developed through an iterative and reflexive methodology involving a systematic narrative review and a national consultation.  The DHSRF Draws upon the comprehensive primary health care principles and a complexity lens to be context-sensitive, open to diverse perspectives, adaptable to different settings, value-critical and dialogic. It potentially contributes to knowledge management by a) allowing for a comprehensive review of HSR at the proposal and design stage to ensure a ‘good fit for purpose’, and b) assessing the strength of the outcomes of HSR in relation to the purpose and objective(s) of the research. By surfacing the inner workings of HSR, the framework can galvanise dialogue and debate in enriching the field and facilitating utilisation of its outcomes for policy, planning and implementation.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This paper is an outcome of a collaborative project titled "A Review of ‘Health Systems Research’ for Strengthening Future Knowledge Management, Planning and Policy in India: Mapping State of the Art from Global to Local" between the Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University and the National Health Systems Resource Centre (NHSRC), MoHFW, Government of India. Most of the researchers have been salaried employees of one of the two institutions, except SD, LK, MS, AS, who received a contractual payment for their work on the project which was located at JNU. This has been from internal funds under the Knowledge Management Division of the NHSRC.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All relevant data is provided in the supplementary material.