Research Problem Book

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/332108258
What is your Research Problem? Discovering a

Research(able) Problem and Topic
Book · March 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 26,504
1 author:
Nixon Muganda
University of South Africa
58 PUBLICATIONS 276 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Knowledge Discovery Process View project
Book chapter View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nixon Muganda on 31 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

What is your Research
Problem?
Discovering a Research(able) Problem and Topic
Nixon Muganda Ochara
Volume I
What is Your Research Problem?
A Note from the Author:
This ebook blends 14 years of my experience as a lecturer, professor and

researcher supervising hundreds of students and researchers trying to do
research. I was also a student researcher who sought to understand how
to do excellent research. I know the challenges of trying to come up with
a researchable topic and problem are more daunting than what is
normally presented in a typical research methods textbook. I used to read
several research methods texts and research projects, hoping to be able
to magically come up with a research topic and problem. I used to ask
questions such as the following: “What is my research topic?”; “How can I
come up with a researchable problem?”; “How do I know it is a valuable
research problem that will be acceptable to the panel?” I have also seen
hundreds of students go through this process of questioning themselves.
That’s why I have started this series on “What is Your Research

Problem?” to demonstrate a step-by-step process of conceptualizing and
conducting excellent research. The first of these series is titled
“Discovering a Research(able) Problem and Topic”. It will ease your
challenges in coming up with a researchable topic and identify a research
problem. This is the first critical step in research, and overcoming this
hurdle will ease the frustration and the procrastination that most
beginning researchers go through as they start on their research journey.
It is my intention to make the process of topic and problem discovery
obvious and manageable so that the other research phases can proceed
smoothly. These other phases are addressed in the other series.
Prof. Nixon Muganda

Table of Contents
Chapter One ................................................................................................ 4
FINDING AND SELECTING RESEARCH TOPICS IN THE “HOUR GLASS”........ 4
Chapter Two ............................................................................................... 9
HOW TO DISCOVER RESEARCH PROBLEMS ................................................ 9
Chapter Three ........................................................................................... 12
HOW TO CONCEPTUALIZE RESEARCH PROBLEMS .................................... 12
Chapter Four ............................................................................................. 17
AIDS USED IN CONCEPTUALIZING RESEARCH PROBLEMS ....................... 17
Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 19
HOW OT EVALUATE YOUR RESEARCH PROBLEMS ................................... 19
References.................................................................................................. 23
DISCOVERING A RESEARCH(ABLE) PROBLEM AND TOPIC
Chapter One
FINDING AND SELECTING RESEARCH TOPICS IN THE “HOUR GLASS”
Why Finding a Research(able) Topic is Obvious!

This chapter turns your attention to one of the most critical and practical issue of the research process
that you must engage in: coming up with the research topic. It is sometimes an obvious activity! Why do we
say that finding a research(able) topic is obvious? Most authors who have written about the process of
coming up with research topics have normally used the analogy of the ‘hour glass’. An ‘hour glass’ is a device
used for measuring the passage of time. It is fitted with a timing device with two connected glass bulbs
containing sand that takes an hour to pass from the upper to the lower bulb. Of course some of you are
thinking about the shape of an ‘hour glass’ that some women desire so much! Given that the ‘hour glass’
timing device takes one hour, can you also take utmost one hour to come up with your research topic?
Let’s get back to the ‘hour glass’ model. Most research projects follow an ‘hour glass’ model, half of which
is shown below for the relevance of the discussion we will have in this section. For it to be a complete ‘hour
glass, the bottom half is a replica of the top half shown. From the half ‘hour glass model shown, at the outset,
a researcher may start with a broad area of study which eventually has to be narrowed down in an operational
format to be a topic.
Ideas: (From many Sources –

See below)
(Scope & Structure)
Broad e.g. Information Systems
(Management, Organizational and IT)
= a logical group of
discipline Research Topic
Figure 1: The Hour Glass Model

Let us use an example from the discipline of Information Systems (or Management Information Systems),
which in most cases is one of the specializations in a School of Business or School of IT. A business
orientation of Information Systems (IS) considers it as a discipline concerned with finding solutions to
management and organizational problems/opportunities using Information Technology (IT) in order to
impact organizational performance. So, if you are a researcher who seeks to undertake research in this
discipline, this is the broad perspective you start from, i.e. the topic should be focus on management and
organizational issues, but using IT. But, what are these broad Management, Organizational and IT aspects of
IS? Laudon & Laudon (2009) identify various dimensions of these components of IS captured below:
Table 1: Dimensions of Information Systems (Adapted from Laudon & Laudon, 2009)
Management Organizational Information Technology
Different Levels of Management Structure Computer Hardware
Decision Making Approaches Business Processes Software
Organizational Strategy Culture Data Management
Products and Services Skills in Different Tasks Networking
IT Infrastructure
As you ‘drill’ deeper into the nature of IS, you notice there are several dimensions to it, and researchers
rarely focus on all the dimensions. For instance, a researcher maybe interested in “How IT Infrastructure
Influences Organizational Strategy”. This is a narrower focus than where we started from as the meaning of IS but
may require further drilling down by the researcher. For example, issues related to Organizational Strategy
can focus on either the planning for it or its implementation, which can also be studied separately. However, we
now see that the researcher has ended up with two main concepts as the focus: Organizational Strategy and IT
Infrastructure. Therefore, a tentative working topic to guide the researcher into the other phases of the research
process could be: “An Investigation of the Impact of IT Infrastructure of Implementation of
Organizational Strategy”. You can see the various components of this topic in the “hourglass” model
above.
Of course the intention of most research is for the findings to be widely applicable or generalizable. Thus
you find that the hourglass widens at the base (once it is a complete ‘hour glass’) to capture the general
intention of most research projects. However before we get ahead of ourselves, we need to know that all
researchers must settle on a particular research problem which must be expressed as a research topic. In the
remainder of this chapter, we explore a number of issues that are critical in choosing a research topic
including identifying research problems, sources of research ideas; and issues to consider when selecting which topic to research.
Therefore, while we have come up with a tentative research topic as in the example above, this is mainly to
guide other activities related to the research process. The topic can be refined as more is unearthed about the
concepts of the topic.
How to Identify Research Problems

One of the most daunting tasks for a researcher is the problem of how to identify a researchable problem
to study. This is not just a relevant issue for a researcher (could be a student researcher, external or internal
company consultant), but also for business managers. We include consultants and business managers because
what they do on a day today basis requires skills in research. For instance, managers have to solve problems
that confront the business or the organization they work for. A reminder of what research is by: this is a
process of thoroughly studying and analysing the situational factors surrounding a problem in order
to seek out solutions to it (Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran , 2001). In order to identify research problems, a
researcher must consider what are the catalysts that inform the development of research topics? There are a
number of these catalysts that can influence the researcher:
a) Existing Organizational Problem: What are some of the problems that an organization is currently
experiencing which you can identify through observation or that are available in some published
material? A prospective researcher or manager should identify a difficult situation that currently exists in
an organization. This maybe an obvious problem (related to management, organizational procedures and
processes, staff issues, etc.) or the problem may not be so obvious but you can get indications of the
problem through its symptoms. Some of these problems or symptoms of problems could be internal or
external to the organization. An example of an internal organizational problem could be related to the
issue of employee absenteeism. Absenteeism maybe evident through symptoms such as employees
coming to work late; staff calling in sick and many staff filling in leave days. All these maybe regarded as
symptoms to an underlying problem that requires some form of managerial action. The interest of the
researcher should be to get to the bottom of the underlying problem that these symptoms point to.
Problems may also be external to the organization, since organization do not operate in isolation and are
affected by the external environment (economic, social, legal, and political). Again if the problem is not
obvious, then the researcher needs to check for the symptoms of the underlying problem. For instance,
assume that you are the Sales Manager of American Airlines and you have noticed that there has been a
steady decline in sales since the late 2000s. What do you think are the possible reasons for the decline in
sales? Could it be increased terrorist activity globally? Is it because of the Ebola outbreak in Western
Africa? Is it due to corruption? Is it because there have been frequent changes of CEOs over this period?
Is it increased competition? Is it something to do with the Internet? The solution may not be obvious
and a manager or researcher maybe required to ‘dig deeper’ through research. The answer could for
instance be related to Internet technology when you consider the airline issue. But how do you know
unless you carry out some form of research? Thus in summary, the practical problems that people experience
internally or externally in organizations is one of the common areas to look for research problems. Could
you think of possible organizational problems that can be sources of a researchable problem, relevant for
your case (discipline)?
b) Opportunities Available to Organizations: Research is normally considered to be problem-based, but

not all the time. The other side of the issue is to look at the opportunities available internally or externally
to organizations. Think of the Internet and its applications (such as social networking) and the
opportunities it offers organizations. For instance, the concept of marketing is currently changing as
organizations try to adopt electronic marketing through websites. How can an organization that is not
currently engaged in electronic marketing realize the benefits of the new concept? This may require that a
study be done in order to ensure successful adoption of such novel concepts. Opportunities are
sometimes reported as current events. Sometimes a phenomenon is noticed in popular culture before it is
taken up by academics. For example Internet gambling or the use of mobile phones for chatting.
Application of Learning: Pick any newspaper such as the Times Magazine; Washington Post; East African,
Daily Nation, East African Standard, New Edge, New Yorker, etc. Look through the section on tenders or
where companies have invited other organizations or consultants to respond to request for services. Read
through the tenders and try and identify the problems or opportunities that these tenders point to. Are they
researchable ideas?
What are the Primary Sources of Research Ideas?

We have seen that research problems can arise from existing problems or from opportunities that an
organization need to take advantage of. But, where do you get ideas regarding these problems or
opportunities that are the basis of research? There are a number of sources for research ideas which are listed
and described below:
• These could be suggestion from an academic or an organizational department. Members of
your department may point out where problems are in the organization or in other organizations. Of
course this may require that the researcher rely on the organization’s information system (this is not
necessarily an IT system!) or even informal channels of communication. If you are a student
researcher, you may be limited in your choices since you are required to undertake a study within
your discipline. Academic department sometimes circulate possible researchable ideas, especially if
these are tied to some funding or when linked to the interests of academic staff members in the
department. Therefore, student researchers should not ignore this source.
• Past Research Work by Students and other Researchers: For most students, this is a good
starting point in order to understand the nature of research that is being undertaken within their
research departments/disciplines. Past studies may also point prospective researchers to some
unanswered questions which the researcher may pursue. These are normally indicated as suggestions
for further research. Therefore as you do your readings, pay close attention to the suggestions that
the authors of what you are reading are suggesting as necessary for further study.
• Recent conference papers and journal papers are also important since they can point to the
researcher to the critical areas that researchers in that field deem to be important. Thus, the most
recent studies in conferences or journals point to what is being viewed as current in that particular
domain.
• Current events reported in the media. Sometimes, a phenomenon is noticed in a particular society
or community before it is recognized by the media. For instance the innovation of M-Pesa (Partly a
mobile money transfer service and mobile banking solution) was a novel innovation that arose from
the telecommunications sector. The M-Pesa innovation has provided many research opportunities
to students and managers in related organizations as well. Therefore, prospective researchers need to
be on the lookout for events, activities or innovations that are catching on in practice or are being
reported in popular media. Those things may just be the next being ‘thing’ that will define research
in several disciplines.
• Organizational Stakeholders: Within an organizational setup, clients, suppliers and other partners
may express certain needs whose solution may not be obvious. This may call for some form of
research. All organizations have several stakeholders. Think of the university for instance. One of
the key stakeholders are students, who, regularly express grievances to university management
individually or through their officials regularly. These ‘grievances’ could actually be opportunities for
universities to enhance their service delivery. It requires that a scientific approach to research is
adopted to solve such grievances.
• Calls for conference papers, book chapters or special issues of journals on a particular theme
are a good pointer to what are considered as ‘hot topics’ within the academic world.
• You can also just think up a topic. It has happened many times in the history of research.
However, this is a very difficult and challenging source of research ideas. If you do, you still need to
be able to really check that the research has not been done, or that it may not be an important issue
(that’s why someone has not thought about it yet!). However, it is an option that is available to
researchers.
• Unsubstantiated Assumptions/Claims: You may also come across people making certain
assumptions or assertions with little supporting evidence. Are you able to carry out research to
support or refute such claims? Examples of such claims could be:
o ‘Organizations that go online will perish’
o ‘Open source software is the future’
o ‘Kikuyu (community in Kenya) are more entrepreneurial than other communities in Kenya’
What is the Criteria for Selecting a Topic?

Having come up with a topic or several topics, how do you ensure that it is feasible? The first thing that
you need to resolve is that the topic should be exciting and enjoyable in a way that can sustain your interest
over the period of the research. This is a very important initial criterion if you are a student. Of course if you
are a manager then you do not have an option. In order to establish the feasibility of a particular research
topic, Oates (2006) points out that a researcher should consider the followings issues:
a) Is the research likely to offer something new for the target users? In other words, consider the
outcomes of the research project: new or improved product or service, new or improved theory, new
or improved research tool or technique, new or improved model or perspective, an in-depth study of
a particular situation in order to improve understanding, explanation or prediction, an exploration of a
topic, area or field and theoretical contributions made by the research.
b) Does the topic have ‘symmetry of potential outcomes’? This requires the researcher to consider
the value of the research. How the research contributes to the different stakeholders need to be
considered.
c) Will your research contribute something to knowledge, even if you do not complete the entire
technical product in the time allowed? Some research such as in computing requires that a
researcher develops a technical artifact. In such types of research, the researcher needs to ensure that
they add to knowledge even if the physical artifact is not complete. In the research that you want to
engage in, how are you going to the development of new knowledge or the modification of existing
theory?
d) Is there a theory (or set of ideas) that will help you structure your approach, at least in the
beginning? Usually there is some theory in the literature that can aid in the process of data collection
or analysis.
e) Is the research and its outcomes likely to be of sufficient scope to meet the course
requirements? Obviously, research for honors students is of limited scope compared with those of
master’s students. You also expect that PhD work has greater scope than those of master students.
This is an issue that is best cleared from the academic department of the student.
f) Can the research be carried out in the time available? All student based research has some time
limitation. You need to consider the time allowed in order to meet the requirements for the research
project. Of course within an organizational situation, managers are expected to be efficient and
effective in taking managerial action. Therefore any research geared towards application within an
organization should take into account organizational realities of the manager in question.
g) Does the research topic fit in with your own motivation, strengths, weaknesses, likes and
dislikes? Obviously, you need to consider these issues. If you are undertaking research that requires
that you have programming skills which you currently do not have, you need to know that the lack of
skills will impact on the quality of the research project.
h) Does the research meet your leaning objectives? That is, do you really want to know the answers
to the research questions that you have set out to answer?
i) Do you have the necessary resources? This requires that you consider whether you have the
resources such as hardware, software, money or the interviewees that will provide you with the data
for your research.
j) Can you approach the topic without too much bias? Scientific research is expected to be
objective, without the researchers feeling unduly interfering. Even though it is recognized some type
of research allows for subjectivity, a researcher should ask himself this question to test their level of
subjectivity: “Do I have answers to the research question already?” If you do, there may be too much
bias in the research effort.
k) Will the research be safe and ethical? This is an issue which is addressed in another section of the
book. However, any research should be carried out without breaking the law, without causing harm to
anyone and within certain ethical guidelines.
The next chapter explores the process of problem conceptualization, a technique which is critical in
helping researchers put their ideas on paper so that the research problem is concretized in writing.
Chapter Two
HOW TO DISCOVER RESEARCH PROBLEMS
From Symptoms to Real Researchable Problems: Initial Insights.

When we talk about conceptualization, we draw attention to the process of organizing your thoughts to
enable you identify and coherently state the research problem of interest. We have explained that research
problems have their basis on organizational problems or opportunities. When a problem exists, it means that
the organization is not operating at a desired state. In other words, problems exists when there is a gap between
the current state (of an organizational procedure, system, sub-system, process, etc.) and a desired state. From a
managerial perspective, when a manager identifies a problem, they would want to find a solution for it.
However for a researcher when this gap is identified, this becomes a research problem. It is this gap that is
conceptualized as a research problem. It is therefore useful to define a research problem as any organizational
situation where a gap exists between the actual existing situation and the desired state. It is a clear and concise statement of the
question or issue with the goal of finding a solution or answer. For business and management research, these research
problems could pertain to:
• Existing business problems to which a manager needs a solution (can you think of any in an
organization?)
• Situations that can be considered as opportunities to the organization, which the manager may not
necessarily require a solution right away but can be conceptualized as research problems.
• Areas in which some conceptual clarity is needed for better theory building. For example, CEO bonus
payouts have been the norm in the last 10 or so years, yet the same CEOs did not foresee the
economic meltdown that came to a head in 2008 and beyond. What does this tell us concerning the
basis of CEO performance evaluation?
• There may also be situations where a researcher is trying to answer a question empirically because of
interest in the research topic.
MANAGERIAL APPLICATION: EXAMPLES OF WELL DEFINED

RESEARCH PROBLEMS (QUESTIONS):
• What management compensation system is suited to organizations in the
financial sector?
• What are the effects of downsizing on the long range growth patterns of
companies?
• To what extent has the new marketing campaign been successful in creating
high-quality, customer centered corporate image that it was intended to produce?
• What factors should be considered in creating a call center for
telecommunication companies in Nigeria?
• To what extent do the structure of the organization and type of the Information
Systems installed account for the variance in the perceived effectiveness of
managerial decision making?
Of concern to the researcher is: how do you end up with such concise statements about what the research
is about? The process of coming up with a definition of a research problem (also called statement of the
research problem) involves organizing and stating your thoughts after identifying the above gaps through an
information gathering and analysis process (preliminary information gathering and literature review) and development of concepts
relevant for the situation.
The conceptualizing process is important to enable the researcher have a focus on a particular research
problem. More so, it helps the researcher delineate the actual research problem from symptoms. Think of the
diagnosis process that patients who visit doctors go through. The doctor asks a number of questions that
enable the patient to describe the symptoms of a disease so that the doctor can know what the problem is.
The intention of the doctor is to treat the problem and not the symptoms. This is also what is expected in
managerial action or research situations: the manager or researcher is expected to find a solution to a problem
and not for the symptoms of the problem. Can you think of situations where a manager can propose a
solution to symptoms rather than the real problem?
The right process of problem conceptualization enables the researcher to define the real problem and not
the symptom. One way of describing the problem rather than the symptoms is to ask the question (of course
after gathering data through observations, preliminary interviews and literature search): Is this factor that I
have identified an antecedent, the real problem or the consequence? Take an example. Suppose a customer support
manager in an Internet company would like to increase the productivity of his support engineers. He reckons
that instead of the engineers providing 3 – onsite support visits to their customers, he can increase this
number to 5 since he notices that the engineers spend a lot of time in the office after finishing work.
However after increasing the number of onsite visits to 5, he met with little success. What is the problem? Is
it low productivity as the manager had earlier envisaged it to be? The real problem here could be low morale and
motivation of the employees who may feel they are not recognized as valuable. The consequence of this problem is low
productivity (among other consequences such as absenteeism, sabotage, etc.). The contributing factor (or the antecedent)
of the problem appears to be the lack of recognition of the employees that lead to low morale.
Discovering Research Problems: The Role of Retroduction

Before we go through the process of research problem discovery, we want to introduce the concept of
retroduction, which is one of the forms of reasoning. You may already be familiar with deduction
(deductive reasoning) and induction (inductive reasoning) as other forms of reasoning. Retroductive
reasoning, simply stated in the context of research, is that process through which a researcher, grappling with
the development of a research problem, forms tentative propositions or explanations of an issue (problem/opportunity)
from a particular theoretical perspective. It is rare, and near impossible to form an opinion about a particular
problem or issue without relying on some frame of reference (theory, philosophy, group of concepts, etc.).
Meaning that as a researcher, whatever problem or issue you are considering, there are certain influences that
will inform how you describe and explain that problem to your audience.
The mode of reasoning that helps researcher draw on these influences on how we describe and explain a
research problem is retroduction. It is therefore an important reasoning process that can be employed to
understand problem conceptualization (next chapter). However, before problem conceptualization, you as
a researcher must discover the problem with the aid of the retroductive process. This is one issue that is rarely
brought out in research methods books and we hope that the material presented in this section will help
researchers in theoretically grounding their research to enhance the quality of their work. We present a
process of research problem discovery and conceptualization employing the use of retroductive reasoning as
well as problem structuring approaches from a systems perspective. The one issue that is addressed in this
chapter is that the process of research problem discovery is done “scientifically”. Addressing this issue, will
hopefully make it clear that there are a number of scientific approaches used in research and not merely the
“Scientific Method” as the only way.
Scientific Approaches Used in Research

The intellectual foundations of the traditional scientific model (such as the scientific method) is based on
two major ideas: reductionism and cause-and-effect relationships. The idea behind reductionism is that
everything in the world and the experiences of it can be reduced, decomposed, or disassembled into
ultimately simple indivisible parts (Daellenbach, McNickle, & Dye, 2012). That describing and explaining the
behaviour of these parts followed by aggregating these partial explanations are adequate in understanding the
whole system. If the reductionist approach is applied to problem solving, the approach involves breaking a
problem into a set of sub problems, which are solved individually and assembling their solutions into an
overall solution. This form of reductionist thinking is applied in many situations. For instance in
“Organizational Science”, the concepts of ‘Division of Labor’ and ‘Organizational structuring along functional lines’ such
as Accounting, Finance, Marketing, Information Systems, Human Resources, etc. are manifestations of this.
As a student of business, you have probably been classified as belonging to a particular option in the MBA
program along the same lines.
The second idea underpinning the scientific model is that of cause-and-effect relationships. This is a
form of relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have
several effects. Much more succinctly, an event A is taken to be the cause of B, if A is both necessary and
sufficient for B to happen. In other words, event A is all that is needed for event B to happen.
Viewing the world from a reductionist and cause-and-effect relationship perspective implies that
everything is described and explained by decomposing it into parts and then looking for cause-and-effect relationships between
the parts. In large measure, this is how research is being done. For instance, if you are in a Business Degree
program, and you are specializing in Human Resource (a sub part of business), you will probably be
concerned with looking at the relationship (cause-and-effect) between two or more concepts in Human
Resource. However, viewing the world this way is problematic for a number of reasons. First, from the
examples above, it may be inadequate to examine the relationships one by one. There may be new relationships
or properties that emerge through the interaction between the various parts. These new properties are known
as emergent properties, which may arise because they are planned, unexpected or counterintuitive. For instance,
the creators of the Internet developed it as a communications tool amongst researchers and the military in the
USA. They did not plan that the medium could eventually be used for e-commerce, pornography or even
terrorism! These are emergent properties which were not planned for but were not part and parcel of the
Internet as a system.
The second problem relates to viewing cause-effect relationships as simply one way. There can also be
mutual causality, feedback or correlation between any two things, i.e. A affects B, but in turn affected by
B. Thus A and B are interdependent. For instance, lack of education may cause unemployment, which in
turn may further exacerbate the low education levels. For instance, the parents, due to lack of education
(causing unemployment) may not be able to afford taking their kids to schools, who in turn will be
unemployed.
Despite the continuing influence of reductionism and cause-and-effect relationship thinking in science,
from around 1940 a number of researchers from various disciplines recognized that all things and events, and
experiences related to them are parts of larger wholes. The focus shifts from the parts to the wholes, that is, to the
systems to which the parts belong. This gave rise to systems thinking whose main thrust is that for something to
be explained, it is viewed as part of a larger system, and it is explained in terms of its role in that system (systemic role).
However, the introduction of systems thinking does not deny the role of reductionism and cause-and-effect
relationship thinking, but rather, they are complimentary. According to Daellenbach, McNickle, & Dye
(2012),
[…] We cannot conceive of parts if there is no system to which they belong, neither can we talk of a whole unless
there are constitutive elements that make up the whole. Cause-and-effect thinking gives attention to the details of
each component, systems thinking to their systemic role in the system (p.23).
If adopted individually, each may miss out crucial aspects of behavior, and therefore, both modes of
thinking are needed for a fuller understanding of the behaviour of systems.
The question is: what is the relevance of these modes of thinking to problem discovery and
conceptualization? Our approach to how we discover, formulate, translate and present research problems
is one of the most significant steps in the research process. In addition to reductionism and cause-and-effect
approaches, systems thinking provides a powerful visioning tool for problem discovery in research. Most
research by students adopt a reductionist approach, with typically linear relationships being the norm. We
need to recognize that system parts can also be non-linear, thus the addition of systems thinking is a welcome
lens in helping researchers conceptualize research problems appropriately. In the next chapter, we explain the
process of problem discovery and conceptualization using retroduction as a mode of reasoning employing the
scientific approaches above.
Chapter Three
HOW TO CONCEPTUALIZE RESEARCH PROBLEMS
The Process of Research Problem Conceptualization

When we talk about conceptualization, we draw attention to the process of organizing your thoughts to
enable you identify and coherently state the research problem of interest. We have explained that research
problems have their basis on organizational problems or opportunities. When a problem exists, it means that
the organization is not operating at a desired state. In other words, problems exists when there is a gap between
the current state (of an organizational procedure, system, sub-system, process, etc.) and a desired state. From a
managerial perspective, when a manager identifies a problem, they would want to find a solution for it.
However for a researcher when this gap is identified, this becomes a research problem. It is this gap that is
conceptualized as a research problem.
Definition: It is therefore useful to define a research problem as any organizational situation where a gap
exists between the actual existing situation and the desired state. It is a clear and concise statement of the question or
issue with the goal of finding a solution or answer. For business and management research, these research problems
could pertain to:
• Existing business problems to which a manager needs a solution (can you think of any in an
organization?)
• Situations that can be considered as opportunities to the organization, which the manager may not
necessarily require a solution right away but can be conceptualized as research problems.
Our view in this book is that the process of problem discovery (by scientists or researchers) is based on
some logic (whether through rational thinking or instinct). The process is not mystical, yet hardly any research
methods text has discussed at length the process of problem discovery in research. This issue has been
addressed by a number of scientists before, though. For instance, Peirce coined the process of problem
discovery as ‘retroduction’, while Hanson illustrated how Kepler used retroduction to demonstrate the orbits
of the planets (Hanson, 1965; Peirce, 1992). Scientists and philosophers alike generally recognize that actual
scientific discoveries falls within the retroductive stage of inference (Ayim, 1974). It is a rational process,
which conforms to the following principles (from a research perspective) (Ayim, 1974):
• Deliberate: Retroduction is undertaken with a definite goal in mind – finding a true explanation of a
problematic issue at hand. Further, the explanation of the surprising fact/puzzle/problem should
align to specific research goals e.g. exploratory, explanatory, etc.
• Voluntary: A researcher or scientist chooses to research on a problem or not. At any one time, there
are many problems that faces a researcher, and from a personal perspective, he chooses what to
study, and from what perspective.
• Critical: The conduct and conclusions of any research activity is never taken at face value. Outcomes
of retroductive activity (conjectures, propositions, hypotheses), as the initial process of research,
must also be judged against certain tests. For instance, deduction is used after to analyse the
hypothesis; while induction compares the deductive conclusions to experience.
• Controlled: The degree to which a researcher possess rational instinct and insight in research is to a
large extent under his control. Thus researchers train for long periods of time to acquire extensive
and specialized knowledge in a particular field. For instance, those who are undertaking graduate
studies have already done 3 – 4 years of undergraduate work, plus another 1 – 2 years of masters
work. While those undertaking PhD need to add another 3+ years of extensive training. All these
combined years of training are instrumental in helping researchers develop insight into their fields.
Thus a researcher trained in Operations Management is likely to have very little insight in the
discipline of Finance, but can develop useful insight in his own field of Operations Management.
After looking at these principles, we now highlight a process of problem discovery, based on the
retroductive principles above:
I. Researcher’s Reaction to External Puzzling Event/Observations

It has been highlighted in earlier sections that research may be problem-based or opportunity-based. A
researcher observes that certain changes (attitudes, attitudes, feelings, actions) are happening in the external
environment (workplace, organization, society, family, etc.). The observed changes noticed are also difficult to
explain in terms of its consequences. For a researcher, when such changes occur, the events cause
puzzlement since this is not a desired state of affairs. Let us illustrate some examples of changes in the
external environment which are causing puzzlement throughout the world:
ORGANIZATIONAL APPLICATION: EXAMPLES OF PUZZLING

ISSUES
a) The world has witnessed an increase in terrorism activity, with
devastating consequences since the year 2001. Some of the
consequences include thousands of deaths witnessed every year;
increased religious fundamentalism; increased security budgetary
allocations; increased profiling of citizens. Is there a solution that is
clear and understandable? The answer is not yet; there are also varied
explanations as to the nature of terrorism and how it can be solved.
The problem still remains a puzzle to many researchers.
b) In Africa, there have been increased democratic gains in countries
during the last twenty or so years. There is hardly any country in the
sub-Saharan Africa that has not held democratic elections. But since
2014, there is a trend in which incumbent presidents of a number of
countries are flouting or changing the constitution to stay in
power beyond term limits. What does this behavior portend for
entrenching democracy in Africa? Is it likely to have unexplained
consequences?
c) Gartner predicts that increasingly, organizations will leverage social
networking sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, to recruit and
screen potential employees as well as make other employment-related
decisions (e.g., employees have been fired for showing bad judgment
on Facebook or when they reveal confidential information in blog
posts).The legal ramifications and potential concerns for using social
networking sites when making these types of decisions are being raised
by legal professionals and psychologists alike. Organizations need to
balance the risks while maximizing the benefits associated with using
social media in employment practices. How can they balance these
risks? What does organizational use of these sites to make these
decisions portend for such social networking sites? Will we see more
inhibited use of these sites as employees think about the future? What
does the reaction of customers mean for the growth of networking
sites?
When faced with such puzzling events/observations, a researcher reacts by seeking to understand the
issue further. A researcher reacts by:
1. First, identifying and reading about the key concepts that ‘pop up’ every now and then that he
encounters the puzzling issue. For instance, when you think about the terrorism problem, what are
the key concepts/terms/constructs that come to your mind? Does words such as terrorist, (in)
security, threats, Islam, etc. come to mind? Apart from the concepts popping up, the researcher
also starts considering what the relationships are between these concepts. For instance, a religious
scholar may be concerned about the relationship between terrorism and Islam; a business scholar
may be concerned about the relationship between terrorism and how it impacts on the economy.
Drilling further down, an Operations Researcher (within the business discipline) may focus on how
to combat terrorism through effective data mining. These examples point to the fact that while
terrorism, a very broad subject, can interest researchers’ from various perspectives or disciplines.
The disciplines in which the researchers have spent years of training influence the theoretical
concepts and the theories they seek to understand the nature of the problems. Thus a researcher
reacts by seeking conceptual clarity regarding the puzzling issue.
2. Secondly, the researcher seeks by looking at the background to the issue, what makes it a puzzling
issue (is it a big problem as evidenced by certain statistics, trends, etc.). However, a search for
conceptual clarity is motivated by the researcher’s background, which influences the kind of
theoretical lenses they adopt in describing and explaining the problem. At this stage, a researcher is
faced with facts about the puzzling issue which may not be fully explained by the theories under his
repertoire (based on his background and discipline), and yet, the problem is visible and needs
resolution or explaining. Any theory that a researcher uses at this stage is therefore merely for
developing propositions/hypotheses.
II. Phase II: The Problem Situation: Context

Apart from determining the background of the puzzling problem and conceptual clarity, a researcher
also seeks to relate the broad concepts of the issue to a particular problem situation/context. Problem
situation is the context within which the problem occurs. Daellenbach, McNickle, & Dye (2012) defines
context as the aggregate of all aspects that can or may influence or shape the problem or issue of concern
(see figure below). To clarify the problem context, let’s use the example of terrorism again: Again, when
the terrorism issue comes up, what images of context come up? Do you see visions of America and the
twin towers bombing? Kenya and the 1998 American embassy bombing? Garissa University
College? Boko Haram? Nigeria? Paris? Al Qaida? Al Shabaab? Etc. Unlike conceptual clarity (which
is a broader conceptual aspect of the puzzling issue), context identifies the various aspects influencing the
issue, linked to the ‘place’ where the problem manifests. This is important because the issue/problem
may manifest differently from one place to the other.
Goals/Aim
People
World
Views
Relationships
s
Resources
Processes Problem Context Consequences
Structures
s
Actions/Reaction
Conflicts
Uncertainties
Controls
Figure 2: Context of the Problem
ORGANIZATIONAL EXERCISE: BACKGROUND, CONCEPTUAL CLARITY, CONTEXT

Let us take the issue of terrorism as a puzzling issue to researchers. As explained earlier, the problem can be
approached by researchers from various perspectives. For instance, an Operations Researcher (within the
business discipline) may focus on how to combat terrorism through effective data mining. The disciplines in
which the researchers have spent years of training influence the theoretical concepts and the theories they
seek to understand the nature of the problems. Thus a researcher reacts by seeking conceptual clarity
regarding the puzzling issue. Let us assume the following:
Researcher’s Background: Operations Research (from a Business Discipline), specifically, Decision Making.
Context: Africa
Required:
1. What kind of concepts will inform the research exploration of the nature of terrorism from the
perspective of the researcher above? Try first before looking at the appendix of this chapter.
Hint: Terrorism, Decision Making, Collaboration, Collaborative Decision Making, etc.
2. What kind of background information will be presented in a research proposal?
3. How can the researcher address the various components of the problem context identified in figure 2
above?
4. Having identified the key concepts of the area of research, what would be the recommended topic of
study?
5. Now consider the terrorism problem from a a). Finance b). Accounting c). Marketing d). Leadership e).
Operations Management f). Marketing, g). Your discipline’s perspective. Answer question 1-4 above.
In describing the problem context, a researcher need to focus on those aspects of the context (Figure 2) that
directly or indirectly affect the measure of performance over which the decision maker (either the researcher
or organizational decision maker) has no immediate control. Let’s take the terrorism example, studies from
the perspective of an Operations Researcher (Decision Theorist). We look at each aspect of the problem
context (Table below).
Table 2: Terrorism: Problem Context
Aspect Issues of Concern
Consequences This may relate to how terrorism affects countries, communities, families, etc.
They are numerous: death, destruction of property, ethnic/religious divisions,
etc.
Goals/Aims Optimize collaborative decision making where multiple agencies are involved.
World Views All those involved have different perspectives on terrorism. These views
should be highlighted.
People Police, Politicians, Intelligence Agencies, Community Policing, International
Partners, Lawyers, Terrorists, Researchers, etc.
Relationships What is the nature of relationships amongst those involved? Formal?
Informal? Who has final say/authority? Constraints in how stakeholders
relate?
Resources What resources are at the disposal of the decision makers? Consider the 5Ms
of Management: Money, Machine (such as technology), Man, Materials,
Minutes (Time). All these are critical in any optimization problem.
Processes The current processes in place that govern behaviour in the collaborative
decision making environment for combating terrorism. Do they exist? What
is in place?
Structures The current structures in place that govern behaviour in the collaborative
decision making environment for combating terrorism. Do they exist? What
is in place?
Conflicts Since most business problems are human conceptions, conflicts are part and
parcel of those systems. How are conflicts currently being handled, if they
exist? Is it effective? Efficient?
Actions/Reactions What actions/reactions can be considered based on the resources available?
What has been done? What needs to be done? How bad is the gap? E.g.
Expanding espionage using mobile phones, putting all affected agencies
under one command, enhancing information sharing etc.
Uncertainties What uncertainties are related to the actions/reactions performed above? E.g.
the potential for infringing on innocent citizens rights to privacy by using
drones for espionage.
Controls What measures are and should be put in place to ensure adequate evaluation
of performance? Are they adequate? What has been done? What needs to be
done? E.g. How can effective collaborative decision making be measured?
The import of the above two phases is to emphasize the fact that problem conceptualization is
subjective, i.e. a researcher chooses what aspect of a problem they want to focus on based on prior influences
(their prior training, context). This is ok and whether explicit or not, such influences are unavoidable.
However, to address these first two phases, the researcher engages in preliminary information gathering and
critical review of literature.
III. Phase III: Critical Review of Literature

Many textbooks are normally not very explicit on the fact that to clearly delineate what the research
problem is, the researcher actually has to undertake a critical review of literature first. Thus, you are first faced
with observations of a puzzling event, after which, for the researcher to obtain conceptual clarity, background
of the issue and problem context, the researcher engages in an intensive and extensive review of literature.
After this process, the researcher then clarifies his topic, structures his problem adequately and envisions
certain propositions or hypotheses that warrants further study. From a retroductive perspective, this process
allows for a critical analysis of the problem through recourse to an “old” theory which may, tentatively, be
used to structure the problem. However, the “old” theory may not fully explain the problem. Other research
processes (deduction and induction) will then be used to verify/refute the “old” theory. This is handled in the
next chapter.
IV. Phase III: Develop Propositions and Research Questions

Once a researcher has developed an understanding of the background of the study, conceptual clarity,
context and a critical review of literature, the outcome should be a conceptual/theoretical framework which
forms the basis for developing “guesses”, propositions, hypotheses and research questions for the puzzling
issue/problem. Part of the outcome of the critical review of literature is to settle on an “old” theory which is
used to tentatively describe and explain the problem without excluding new facts which may not have been
part of the “old” theory. The concepts and their relationships in the “old” and probably modified theory are
used to form conjectures, propositions, hypotheses and research questions.
Overall, the retroductive process of Problem Discovery proceeds as follows:
Observation of a Puzzling Event (Undesired State)


Linking the Puzzling Event to the Problem Context

Critical Analysis of problem using a priori model or theory that can best explain the problem

Explanation of the Problem

Generation of Propositions/Hypotheses/Research Questions

Next Phase of the Research Process (e.g. Deduction and/or Induction)
In summary, retroductive reasoning is a useful process through which a researcher, grappling with the
development of a research problem, forms tentative propositions or explanations from a particular
theoretical perspective. It is therefore an important reasoning process that can be employed to
understand problem conceptualization. A number of issues are addressed in this section to illuminate the
process of research problem discovery: the first addresses the problems of the scientific method and why
researchers need to elevate their thinking when coming up with research problems. Secondly, the
retroductive process of reasoning is used to illustrate problem conceptualization from a systems
perspective.
Chapter Four
AIDS USED IN CONCEPTUALIZING RESEARCH PROBLEMS
Aids Used in Problem Conceptualization

A number of techniques are available in helping to conceptualize the research problem. A complete and
detailed understanding of the problem situation is a necessary condition for successful research or project
intervention. There are a number of tools that researchers and managers can use as aids in clarifying the
problem situation. This chapter will not focus on how to use them, but will highlight their importance. If you
need to know how to use them, then it is important to read further on the specifics of the tools.
a) Brainstorming
A common technique employed especially in group settings is brainstorming. Brainstorming allows a
group of people focused on a particular broad problem to write down their ideas unhindered. These ideas are
eventually discussed and clustered in order to identify ideas which are most relevant to the research problem
at hand.
b) Concept Mapping
Another technique that may prove to be useful to individuals and groups is that of concept mapping.
Trochim, the originator of the concept mapping methodology used in planning and evaluation, defines a
concept map as a pictorial representation of a group's or individual’s thinking which displays all of the ideas
relative to the topic at hand, shows how these ideas are related to each other and, optionally, shows which
ideas are more relevant, important, or appropriate. There are many descriptions of concept mapping on the
web that you can refer to. A good resource to look up is:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/mapping/mapping.htm
Figure 3: Concept Mapping
c) Facet Theory
Facet theory, developed by Louis Guttmann, is another systematic approach for coordinating theory
and research. It uses a mapping sequence for defining observations, interviews or information from
published sources.
d) Delphi Method
The Delphi Method can also be used as a conceptualization technique for exploring an issue with a
distributed group of people towards consensus.
e) Focus Groups
Focus Groups can also be an important preliminary interview technique that can help the researcher
about a particular research problem.
f) Mind Maps
A mind map is a diagram used to visually organize information about something, a phenomenon, an
issue or a problem. A mind map is often created around a single concept, drawn as an image in the center
of a blank landscape page, to which associated representations of ideas such as images, words and parts
of words are added. Major ideas are connected directly to the central concept, and other ideas branch out
from those. Mind maps can be drawn by hand, either as "rough notes" during a lecture, meeting or
planning session, for example, or as higher quality pictures when more time is available. Things are
arranged in a meaningful way. Arrows from one entry to another indicate the direction of a causal
relationship.
g) Rich Picture Diagrams

Rich pictures is part of Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 2000). Checkland
suggests hand drawn cartoon-like pictorial summary the observer knows about a situation. Rich Pictures
provide a diagrammatic way of relating your own experiences and perceptions to a given problem
situation through the identification and linking of a series of concepts.
The creation of a Rich Picture provides a forum in which to think about a given situation. Rich
pictures should concentrate on both the structure and the processes of a given situation. Rich Pictures are
a part of the understanding process, not just a way of recording what you know of a given situation or
creating a work of art. Three major components are represented in mind maps and rich pictures:
• Elements of Structure: These are those aspects of the situation that are relatively stable or
change very slowly in the timeframe being considered in the situation. These could be
physical structures such buildings, products, equipment, etc.
• Elements of Process: All dynamic aspects that undergo change or are in a state of change.
These could be activities that go on within the structure, transformation processes of
information and materials, etc.
• Relationship between Structure and Process and Between Processes: How does
structure affect processes? What are the governing rules? What are the direct or indirect
consequences?
• Stakeholders: Identifies who are the problem owners, problem users, problem customers
and the analysts.
h) Lastly and of much more practical relevance to students, it is important to read through the literature
and project of other students to see the logic of how they defined their research problem. You can
then borrow from these published sources to help you in crafting your problem statement.
Chapter Five
HOW OT EVALUATE YOUR RESEARCH PROBLEMS
Evaluating Research Problems

After completing the retroductive process of problem conceptualization, a researcher needs to reflect on
the adequacy and completeness of the research problem to ensure it is not vague. Recall that during the
process of problem conceptualization, a researcher is faced with a puzzling issue for which the “old” or
existing theories may not be adequate in explaining the problem. Therefore, whatever interpretation or
explanation adopted, the researcher must ensure there is interpretive credibility.
Interpretive credibility of the research problem implies two things:

i. From a normative (epistemological rigor) perspective, the theory/theoretical perspective adopted
for explaining the problem should be a strong theory. Therefore the question is: Is the theory that
the researcher has chosen a strong or a weak theory? There is no consensus as to what constitutes a
strong or a weak theory. However, we anchor on what Sutton & Staw (1995) advocates as strong
theory: that strong theory is that that answers questions related to why. Strong theory emphasizes the
nature of causal relationships (of events, structures), identifies what comes first as well as the timing
of such events. Further, that a strong theory delves into underlying processes regarding the
occurrence or non-occurrence of events and the systematic reasons why they occur.
ii. From a prescriptive (methodological rigor) perspective, the theoretical concepts/constructs
adopted for the study are complete and relevant for the problem under consideration. The key issue
here is, if you look at the problem you want to address, and the “old” theory you are employing to
explain it, do the concepts of the theory cover all aspects of the puzzling problem? If not, it may
require that you modify the “old” theory by adding additional concepts (from observations or
literature review) or integrate the “old” theory with another theory to make it complete. The
management application shown below tries to make the concepts clearer.
In evaluating research problems, the researcher must also ensure that there is contextual fit, i.e. what are
the “big” questions of relevance to the context which the researcher needs to focus on; and does the context
exhibit enough of the problem that warrant a study? The contextual fit also implies two issues to be
addressed:
i. From a normative (epistemological rigor), the researcher needs to determine critical questions and
propositions which are relevant for the context under study. This involves developing ‘starting’
propositions or research questions that have been identified (from observations, available data,
pilot studies, focus groups, etc.) as critical to the context of the research. If there are numerous
issues, is there some prioritization scheme that can validate the selected questions. In addition,
sometimes a researcher adopts a particular philosophical stance, which guides how the researcher
poses and focus his study.
ii. From a prescriptive (methodological rigor), the researcher should seek to link the spotted
research gaps to the context. Are there some gaps which are irrelevant to the context? For
instance, the problem may focus on a technical application which may still not be relevant to the
context under study. This may ‘force’ the researcher to drop the irrelevant research gap and only
include those that are relevant for the context. Thus, overall the focus is on whether the identified
concepts are all relevant to the context, or some maybe dropped for various reasons. We propose
analogical reasoning in doing this. An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of
objects that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is any
type of thinking that relies upon an analogy. We propose this form of reasoning because the “old”
theory you are considering in explaining your research problem was most likely used in a different
context. Therefore, lifting the theory “as is” to your context of study is unwise without making
comparisons. There may be similarities between the contexts, which impacts on the research gaps
that maybe relevant for your problem situation.
A summary of these ideas are summarized in the table below. We urge you to read through the
application of these ideas in the management application that follows as well.
Table 3: Evaluating Research Problems
ORGANIZATIONAL APPLICATION: PROFITABILITY IN THE MOBILE PHONE BANKING

SECTOR IN NIGERIA, SOUTH AFRICA AND KENYA
Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya and three of the leading countries in the telecommunications sector, mobile phone
banking sector. Mobile banking has proved to appealing to consumers in Africa. The best model so far, of a mobile
money platform in Africa and in the world, has been Kenya’s M-Pesa. M-Pesa was launched in 2007 by Safaricom, an
affiliate of Vodafone, M-Pesa subscribers are now more than 25 million out of a population of about 44 million in
Kenya by 2015. It is available in nine markets: Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Democratic Republic of Congo, India,
Mozambique, Egypt, Lesotho and Romania. M-Pesa processes transactions worth $4.98 billion annually, which is about
17 percent of total registered mobile money accounts in Kenya, according to the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). This finding indicates that total mobile money transactions in Kenya come to about $29.29
billion annually. Therefore, the mobile banking sector in Kenya is one of the most profitable, and can be profitable in
countries such as Nigeria and South Africa.
Required (Research Problem): Given the profitability of mobile banking applications in Kenya (especially) and the
other nine countries where it is found, what strategies should be considered by organizations (service providers seeking
to operate in Nigeria (assuming she does not have M-Pesa)? How would you the research problem? The general
conjecture is that the mobile banking sector is profitable. Nigeria has a population of over 167 million with over 90
million mobile phone subscribers; South Africa has a population of about 50 million, with about 40 million with mobile
phone access; while Kenya has a population of about 44 million, with more than 25 million mobile banking subscribers.
Possible Approaches: There are several models (competitive strategy and industry structure) that can be candidates
which can be used as aids in understanding, describing and explaining the research problem. From a review of literature,
a researcher may come across the following theories/models:
Theory/Model Key Concepts/Ideas

Porter’s Five Forces Model/Positioning Industry Structure; Competitive Advantage
Wilde and Hax’s Delta Model system lock-in strategy, customer solution
strategy, and best product strategy
Resource – Based View Application of tangible or intangible resources
C. K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel Model Focus on Core Competencies
Teece, 1997 Dynamic Capabilities Integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and
external competences; innovation.
W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne on ‘Blue Competition is Irrelevant; New Markets
Ocean Strategy
Most students/researchers from business schools readily identify with at least two of these theories: Porter’s Models and
the Blue Ocean Strategy. They are either enthusiasts or disciples of either or both of the two approaches to
understanding profitability in a particular sector. The blue-ocean approach to calls for creating a new market. If that is
the case, attracted consumers over the long term, industry profits and the number of vendors would both steadily
increase, thus companies succeed by seeking out new markets. If, however, firm profitability went down as the number
of competitors go up, the scope for new opportunities would become increasingly limited (Burke, van Stel, & Thurik,
2010). In other words, both theories and what they propagate may or can be at play in new markets. Blue Ocean strategy
when new markets are being approached and competitive strategy as the markets mature. In other words, where the
problem facing the researcher is how to enter a new market, a focus on only the Blue Ocean strategy, without thinking
about Porter’s model would be inadequate to understand the problem.
Evaluation of the Research Problems: To evaluate the research problem, we look at each of the normative and
prescriptive components highlighted in 3.4 above.
1. Normative Interpretive Credibility: This criterion is concerned with assessing whether the theory (ies) adopted
are weak or strong. Like was highlighted before, the distinction between strong and weak theories is not obvious
and there is no consensus. However, sometimes for a researcher, they just need to ask themselves whether the
individual(s) owning the theory that they are considering are regarded as ‘gurus’ in that particular field or discipline.
Certainly, Michael Porter and the authors of the ‘Blue Ocean Strategy’ earns some right to the title in the area of
competitive strategy. How can you tell? When you search for Michael Porter’s text (1980; 2008 versions), the
scholar has been cited 2909 and 37561 times respectively, according to Google Scholar; while the Delta Model
(Wilde & Hax) has been cited 266 times. Therefore, in terms of respectability in the scientific community, Porter’s
model carries the day. On the same note, the 2015 version of the ‘Blue Ocean Strategy’ has been cited 2711. Thus,
at a very rudimentary, but respectable level, the number of citations is a good indicator of the credibility that a
theory is attaining in the scientific community. This is one of the indicators of strength theory. By the way, we do
not think that strong theory is necessarily good theory!
2. Prescriptive Interpretive Credibility: Recall that the emphasis of this criterion is whether or not the adopted
concepts from the theory (ies) are complete and represent the spectrum of the problem under investigation. Using
the example above, the issue is what strategies service providers should use to move into new markets such as
Nigeria. The perspective of competitive advantage by Michael Porter is that of strategic positioning based on certain
generic strategies of cost leadership, differentiation strategy and growth strategy. On the other hand, the blue-
ocean approach call for creating new markets. However even in new markets, as the number of competitors
increase, profitability goes down. The service providers are likely to then resort to Porter’s approach of competitive
advantage. Thus, while the two theories appear to be strong theories, each individually is unlikely to be adequate in
accounting for how an organization would move into a new market. For instance, since the M-Pesa service is not
currently in Nigeria, the Blue Ocean Strategy appears attractive. But as competition in the Nigerian market matures,
organizations in that sector will then seek to retain their market positions through recourse to competitive strategies
according to Michael Porter, for instance.
Thus a researcher may conceptualize the problem as involving two stages: the first involves employing strategies
that are relevant for the introduction of the new innovation in the Nigerian Market using the Blue Ocean Strategy;
while the second stage after market maturity may require using Michael Porters strategies to aid the organization in
as competition intensifies.
Innovation Adoption Stage: Market Maturity Stage:

Blue Ocean Strategy Competitive Strategy
Concepts Concepts
In the above case, a single theory may not have prescriptive interpretive credibility and a researcher may require to
integrate the theory with another strong theory or use concepts (from pilot studies, focus groups) that are relevant
for the context under study.
3. Contextual Fit (Normative and Prescriptive): Both normative and prescriptive contextual fit for evaluating the
research problem are dependent on the conditions of the context (place) where the study is to be undertaken. The
researcher, in this case, assesses the condition of context and maps the theoretical concepts to these conditions. For
instance, according to the Blue Ocean Strategy, the key concepts are the following: Reconstruction of Market
Boundaries, Focusing on Big Picture; Reaching beyond Existing Demand; Overcoming Organizational
Hurdles and Strategy Execution. Take the first concept of “Reconstructing Market Boundaries”. The researcher may
realize that for an organization that has decided to move into a new market (Nigeria), the decision has been made
due to the compelling-ness of the profitability of the new innovation. Thus, there may be no need to focus on this
particular concept. The researcher may then drop this concept because it is irrelevant in this context.
In sum, a researcher need to self-reflect on the research problem they have conceptualized. This
gives the researcher (and other stakeholders) confidence that all bases have been covered in conceptualization
of the research problem. The evaluating criteria should focus on both interpretive credibility and contextual
fit.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
I’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback. E-Mail me at:
nixon.muganda@gmail.com
NEED HELP?
I hold research workshops and seminars to help organizations, students and consultants do excellent
research. E-Mail me at: nixon.muganda@gmail.com
HOW TO CITE THE PUBLICATION:

Ochara, N.M. (2019). What is Your Research Problem: Discovering a Research(able) Problem and Topic. BIT Institute.
AND LASTLY,
When you turn the page, Kindle will give you an opportunity to rate the book and share your thoughts on
Twitter and Facebook. If you believe the book was worth sharing, kindly take a moment to let you friends
and colleagues know about it? If it turns out to make a difference in their research efforts, they will forever be
grateful to you. I will also be grateful.
References
Ayim, M. (1974). Retroduction: The rational instinct. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 34-43.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran , U. (2001). Applied Business Research: Qualitative & Quantitative Method.
Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17, S11-
S58.
Daellenbach, H., McNickle, D., & Dye, S. (2012). Management science: decision-making through systems thinking. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hanson, N. R. (1965). Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science... CUP Archive.
Laudon, K., & Laudon, J. (2009). Management Information Systems: International Edition (11/E ed.). Pearson Higher
Education.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things: the Cambridge conferences lectures of 1898. Harvard University Press.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative science quarterly, 371-384.
View publication stats

Research Problem Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Problem Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

What is your Research Problem? Discovering a

Book · March 2019

Knowledge Discovery Process View project

Book chapter View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Nixon Muganda Ochara

A Note from the Author:

This ebook blends 14 years of my experience as a lecturer, professor and

That’s why I have started this series on “What is Your Research

Prof. Nixon Muganda

DISCOVERING A RESEARCH(ABLE) PROBLEM AND TOPIC

FINDING AND SELECTING RESEARCH TOPICS IN THE “HOUR GLASS”

Why Finding a Research(able) Topic is Obvious!

Ideas: (From many Sources –

Figure 1: The Hour Glass Model

How to Identify Research Problems

b) Opportunities Available to Organizations: Research is normally considered to be problem-based, but

What are the Primary Sources of Research Ideas?

What is the Criteria for Selecting a Topic?

HOW TO DISCOVER RESEARCH PROBLEMS

From Symptoms to Real Researchable Problems: Initial Insights.

MANAGERIAL APPLICATION: EXAMPLES OF WELL DEFINED

Discovering Research Problems: The Role of Retroduction

Scientific Approaches Used in Research

HOW TO CONCEPTUALIZE RESEARCH PROBLEMS

The Process of Research Problem Conceptualization

I. Researcher’s Reaction to External Puzzling Event/Observations

ORGANIZATIONAL APPLICATION: EXAMPLES OF PUZZLING

II. Phase II: The Problem Situation: Context

Processes Problem Context Consequences

Figure 2: Context of the Problem

ORGANIZATIONAL EXERCISE: BACKGROUND, CONCEPTUAL CLARITY, CONTEXT

III. Phase III: Critical Review of Literature

IV. Phase III: Develop Propositions and Research Questions

Observation of a Puzzling Event (Undesired State)

AIDS USED IN CONCEPTUALIZING RESEARCH PROBLEMS

Aids Used in Problem Conceptualization

Figure 3: Concept Mapping

g) Rich Picture Diagrams

HOW OT EVALUATE YOUR RESEARCH PROBLEMS

Evaluating Research Problems

Interpretive credibility of the research problem implies two things:

Table 3: Evaluating Research Problems

ORGANIZATIONAL APPLICATION: PROFITABILITY IN THE MOBILE PHONE BANKING

Theory/Model Key Concepts/Ideas

Innovation Adoption Stage: Market Maturity Stage:

HOW TO CITE THE PUBLICATION:

View publication stats

You might also like