And which historical frameworks, theories or philosophies have replaced “Great Man” theory in academia?
First it's important to define what the 'Great Man' theory of history really is, something /u/staffsargent did well in this thread too. In short, it is the idea a few 'great men' are the driving force in history.
So what are historical theories more generally speaking? Historical theories are frameworks that historians use to understand the different 'engines' of history. They are explanations of things that cause change over time. A good historical theory won't just help you describe history, it will help you explain history.
Let's get back to the topic at hand.
Here are a couple of things the Great Man theory is not:
Tracking the intellectual critique of the Great Man theory gets to the core of your issues. The rise of an interest in social. The Great Man theory held sway in the 19th century, but was already getting pretty thoroughly critiqued before the turn of the twentieth. Herbert Spencer is one noted critic of the Great Man theory and he was born in 1820.
As intellectuals and scholars began to take more interest in questions of society writ large, the idea of the Great Man as a focal point for historical inquiry became less appealing - and for good reason. If you really believe the Great Man theory of history is true, it limits the questions you would ask about history rather dramatically. If the province of historical change over time lies in one a few people, the rest of society fades away. You might be interested in describing society for one reason or another, but there is little point in explaining it.
There are a few reasons for why that shift in interest occurred but here is one: industrialization and urbanization caused a new set of social problems that administrative states were increasingly interested in solving/forced to address. That meant those problems needed explanations about why they existed and what their origins were. Here's an important note: their desire to answer those questions were NOT always good even if they were based in ideas that refuted the great man theory of history (racism, classism, sexism, etc. played heavily into progressive understandings of history that arose in the same period).
As for what replaced Great Man theory - the answer is a great many things.
Here are some examples from a post I wrote years ago that I dug up:
In addition to that list I'd add:
Cultural history, about which I wrote a little here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d4shs/get_cultured_massive_cultural_history_panel_ama/ct1s0xe/
Global Systems Theory: This is one that has gained traction even more recently and emphasizes the interconnectedness of the world, both historically and presently. This runs parallel to more emphasis on "cross-disciplinary" study of topics and a desire by some to break the barriers between disciplines that have often been somewhat siloed off from one another in the academy. (There are a whole bunch of issues here that are beyond the scope of this question that I am tempted to get into but won't unless someone asks a follow up about it)
Finally, a short note I why the Great Man Theory seems to have so much staying power even thought it's really not particularly analytically useful. Although you'd be hard-pressed to find any number of professional historians who think it is a useful way of understanding the past, the general public is still very much steeped in that way of thinking. Our history curricula in high schools still have a little bit more of it than I'd like and if you never go on to study history at a higher level than that, it's entirely possible your main exposure to the past is through popular biographies and documentaries, which are far more skewed towards the Great Man theory than historical professionals (How many Hitler-focused shows are there on the history channel compared to shows about more typical Germans. Then again, maybe it's all UFOs and Aliens now anyway. But I digress.)