Structure of Today’s Discussion

1. Principles, Practices and Dynamics of Research Management LECTURE-3Le Problematique:Understanding Research ProblemKazi Nurmohammad Hossainul HaqueSenior Lecturer, Civil Service College Dhaka MPA 5th Batch (2010-11)10 January 2011 MondayBIAM Foundation Complex

2. Structure of Today’s Discussion • Locating research problem in the research process • Meaning of research problem • Criteria of problematisation • Steps of problematisation • Defining research problem: 4 considerations • Characteristics of research problem • Group Exercise

3. Research Problem in the Research Process Define Research Problem Interpret & Report Writing Data Analyses Review Concepts and Theories & Review Previous Research Findings Collect Data Formulate Hypotheses Design Research

4. Meaning of Research Problem • A research problem – a research(able) problem (not just problem) • Research problem is sometimes equated with “a topic of research or statement of the problem. It is wrong to think so. A topic or statement of the problem and research problem are not synonymous but they are inclusive. The problem concerns with the functioning of the broader area of field studied whereas a ..... statement of the problem is the verbal statement of the problem while (the) topic is the definition of the problem which delimits or pin points the task of a researcher (Singh 2005: 60).”

5. Criteria of Problematisation Novelty or newness Avoidance of duplication Time factor Importance for the field Problem Logistical & budgetary considerations Inclination Structural-contexual factors Data availability Methods

6. Criteria of Problematisation (Cont.) Problematisation Ecology Novelty or newness Avoidance of duplication Time factor Importance for the field Logistical & budgetary considerations Problem Inclination Structural-contexual factors Data availability Methods

7. Criteria of Problematisation (Cont.) – Problematique Questionnaire for the Researcher Is the problem ‘really’ important? Is the problem interesting to ‘others’? Is the problem chosen a ‘real’ problem? Does the problem display ‘originality’ and ‘creativity’? Am I really concerned with finding the solution? Am I able to state hypotheses from the problem in a testable form? Will I learn something new from this problem? Do I understand the relationship of this specific problem to the broader problem area? Am I able to select a sample from which I can generalise to some population? Can someone replicate the study? Will the proposed methods give the information I want? Is the study, including the application of its results, practical?

8. Steps of Problematisation

9. Defining Problem: Considerations • Ontology – Epistemology – Methodology • Methodological approaches • Measurement validity • Causation

10. Defining Problem (I): Ontology - Epistemology - Methodology ONTOLOGICAL STANCE – WHAT I WILL NOT QUESTION AND ASK MY READER TO ACCEPT AS GIVEN FROM THE PAST EVALUATION – KNOWING WHAT IS A BETTER SOCIETY EPISTEMOLOGICAL SPACE – WHAT I WILL EXPLORE PREDICTION – WHAT WILL STRUCTURES LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE PRESCIPTION - HUMAN AGENCY AND THE CAPACITY TO WILL AND MAKE A BETTER WORLD TELEOLOGICAL BELIEF – WHAT THE FUTURE WILL/SHOULD LOOK LIKE

11. Defining Problem (II): Methodological Approaches

12. Defining Problem (III): Measurement Validity of Concepts • Measurement validity of concepts is warranted for appropriate problematisation • In case of a concept that qualifies in measurement validity test, the meaning is explicit and the operational definition can be verified. • Operationalisation of terms is necessary for operationalisation of research • Reconceptualisation might be necessary for operationalisation of terms • Limit vocabulary in linguistic history of understanding akin to the socio-cultural context concerned. • Vague and stretched conceptualisations that use less precisions yield undefined limitless generalisations

13. Defining Problem (IV): Causation

14. Defining Problem (IV): Causation (Cont.) 16 Criteria of Causation • Specification: What outcomes? What set of cases? Are Internal arguments consistent? Are key terms operational? • Breath: a proposition should inform about many events • Boundedness: the scope of a proposition should be appropriate not arbitrary • Completeness: a proposition should be sufficient in its explanation. 6. Parsimony: a proposition should be simple in presenting its content. 7. Differentiation: a cause should be separate from the effect. 8. Priority: Whether the cause precedes the effect?

15. Defining Problem (IV): Causation (Cont.) 16 Criteria of Causation (Cont.) 9. Independence: a cause should be independent from other causes as well as the outcome. 10. Contingency: a cause should be linked to relevant background factors. 11. Mechanism: a cause should lead to the effect through a process chain. 12. Analytical utility: whether a proposition coherently fits into existing body of knowledge 13. Intelligibility: the proposition shouldn’t be external to public domain of understanding. 14. Relevance: whether a proposition is relevant to human concerns that can be addressed. 15. Innovation: a proposition should add new knowledge. 16. Comparison: a cause should be drawn by weighing in with other potential causes.

16. Characteristics of Research Problem • It should ask about a relationship between two or more variables (Independent & Dependent) • It should be stated clearly and unambiguously, usually in question form • It should be possible to collect data or answer the question asked. • It should not represent a moral or ethical judgement

17. Group Exercise • Let’s divide into 3-5 groups to work on some research excerpts to answer the following tasks: • A very brief introduction to the research • What is the research problem? • If and how much the research problematisation answer some of the Problematique Questionnaire for the Researcher • Does the glimpse of the research problematisation from the research excerpts meet characteristics of research problem

18. Thanks for your attention!!!