Faez Dinparast
Abstract
AbstractThis article critically evaluates the literature on problem statement formulation and modeling in social scienceresearch. Despite the emphasized importance of defining a research problem, many studies lack a clearproblem statement or exhibit weaknesses in its articulation. The primary challenge ...
Read More
AbstractThis article critically evaluates the literature on problem statement formulation and modeling in social scienceresearch. Despite the emphasized importance of defining a research problem, many studies lack a clearproblem statement or exhibit weaknesses in its articulation. The primary challenge lies in the insufficientdiscussion of the nature and components of a problem statement. The study reviews existing literature topropose a coherent and practical framework for constructing a research problem. It posits that a researchproblem is an artificial construct shaped by the interplay between the researcher’s knowledge and reality,typically framed through two models: Conflict in Science (arising from discrepancies between empiricalreality and theoretical expectations) and Gap in Science (stemming from deficiencies in existing knowledge).The article demonstrates that these models share an underlying logical structure, emphasizing the researcher’sactive role in problem formulation. By analyzing the relationship between reality and knowledge, the studyprovides a systematic approach to problem articulation, addressing ambiguities in methodological discourseand offering actionable guidelines for researchers.IntroductionThe formulation of a research problem is pivotal in scientific inquiry, serving as the foundation for hypothesisgeneration, methodology selection, and knowledge advancement. However, despite its centrality,1 Associate professor of Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Dinparast@atu.ac.ir 09125857342Recived date: 2 - 6 – 2024 accepted date: 23 - 9 - 2024
2
methodological literature often overlooks the operational components of problem articulation. This studyaddresses this gap by synthesizing theoretical perspectives on problem formulation, distinguishingbetween problem and question, and critiquing reductionist approaches that conflate the two. Drawing onPopper’s notion of scientific discovery and Creswell’s gap-spotting framework, the article argues that aresearch problem is a constructed entity shaped by the researcher’s engagement with existing knowledge andempirical reality. The study aims to unify fragmented discussions on problem formulation, offering astructured model applicable across social science disciplines.Materials & MethodsThe study employs a critical literature review methodology, analyzing seminal works in research methodology,philosophy of science, and social theory. Key sources include Popper (1984), Creswell (2017), and Locke &Golden-Biddle (1997), among others. Thematic analysis identifies recurring frameworks for problemformulation, particularly the Conflict and Gap models. Comparative evaluation of these models is conductedto reveal their shared epistemological foundations. Case studies from administrative and management researchillustrate practical applications of the proposed framework. The analysis integrates qualitative insights withconceptual rigor, emphasizing the researcher’s role in problem construction.ResultsTwo dominant models of problem formulation emerge:1. Conflict Model: Problems arise from contradictions between empirical observations and theoreticalexpectations (e.g., unexpected voting behavior contradicting rational choice theory).2. Gap Model: Problems stem from identified deficiencies in existing knowledge (e.g., understudiedphenomena or inconsistent findings).Both models share a common logic: they justify research by highlighting discrepancies that demandresolution. The study further reveals that gap-spotting, while prevalent, aligns with Popper’s conflict-driven logic when reinterpreted as a response to unmet scholarly expectations.DiscussionThe article challenges the dichotomy between conflict- and gap-based problem formulation, demonstratingtheir epistemological unity. By reinterpreting gaps as implicit conflicts (e.g., gaps reflect unmet expectationsfor comprehensive knowledge), the study bridges methodological divides. Practical implications includeguidelines for researchers to articulate problems through structured justification of discrepancies, whetherempirical or theoretical. Critically, the study underscores the necessity of contextualizing problems withinbroader scholarly discourse to ensure relevance and rigor. Limitations include the focus on social sciences,warranting future exploration in interdisciplinary contexts.ConclusionThis study provides a unified framework for problem formulation, reconciling conflict- and gap-basedapproaches under a single epistemological logic. By clarifying the components and justification of researchproblems, it equips researchers with tools to construct robust, methodologically sound inquiries. The findingsadvocate for reflexive engagement with existing knowledge, emphasizing problem formulation as a dynamic,iterative process central to scientific advancement.
Mohammad Amin Torabi; Masoumeh Sahraei
Abstract
AbstractThroughout history, one of the greatest intellectual and philosophical challenges humanities has faced is the question of the existence of God. With technological advancements and the emergence of artificial intelligence, an opportunity has now arisen to approach this question from a new angle, ...
Read More
AbstractThroughout history, one of the greatest intellectual and philosophical challenges humanities has faced is the question of the existence of God. With technological advancements and the emergence of artificial intelligence, an opportunity has now arisen to approach this question from a new angle, utilizing the advanced capabilities of artificial intelligence. The research methodology of this study is applied in terms of its purpose and exploratory (simulation) in nature. In the first phase, it continued with responses from the intelligent system ChatGPT until reaching the saturation point of answers. In the second phase, using thematic analysis, each of the responses was semantically coded and placed in common themes. The findings were categorized and interpreted in four sections: philosophical, religious, perceptual, and scientific. The results indicate that, from a philosophical perspective, artificial intelligence has the capability to contemplate the concept of the existence of God. Religiously, it analyzes and interprets religious texts and concepts with precision. Perceptually, it has the ability to understand and recognize various types of experiences, feelings, and thoughtful reflections on God, analyzing and reconstructing these perception ns based on existing patterns in the data. Scientifically, it precisely presents the intersections and scientific relationships regarding existence and creation, exploration, and ultimate results.Keywords: Philosophy of God’s Existence, Proof of God’s Existence, Artificial Intelligence and God, ChatGPT Extended AbstractIntroductionThe concept of God has played a central role in shaping human civilization, whether through religious practice, ethical frameworks, or existential contemplation. Believers often argue that acknowledging a higher power confers meaning and moral direction, while skeptics challenge the coherence or necessity of such a being. Technological breakthroughs in AI now present an unprecedented opportunity to re-examine and synthesize the vast corpus of human thought around God’s existence. Specifically, ChatGPT draws upon extensive datasets encompassing philosophy, theology, history, and science, enabling the creation of structured, comprehensive answers to questions that have occupied thinkers for centuries. Yet the question remains: Does AI shed new light on the debate, or merely reorganize existing ideas? This research addresses that query by documenting ChatGPT’s responses to systematically designed prompts about God’s existence, scrutinizing the arguments produced, and evaluating how these align with or differ from traditional scholarly discourse.Materials & MethodsWe adopted an exploratory, simulation-based methodology, divided into two phases. In the first phase, a series of questions—probing both the affirmative and negative positions on God’s existence—were posed to ChatGPT in iterative rounds. The process continued until thematic saturation was verified by a panel of ten experts in philosophy, theology, and cognitive science who reviewed each AI-generated response for novelty and consistency. Once the experts deemed that no substantially new themes emerged, the data was consolidated for analysis. In the second phase, we conducted a thematic coding of the AI’s answers, labeling distinct arguments, examples, and references to philosophical and religious traditions. This coding was subjected to peer validation, ensuring that at least 70% of the experts agreed on the classification of each theme. The final dataset was then arranged into four major categories—philosophical, religious, perceptual, and scientific—and subsequently evaluated to illustrate the depth and range of AI-generated content on God’s existence.Discussion & ResultThe analysis demonstrates that ChatGPT consistently reproduces a broad array of arguments commonly found in classical philosophy, including cosmological reasoning positing a first cause, teleological claims highlighting design in nature, and moral arguments linking ethical absolutes to a divine lawgiver. Additionally, the AI presents counterpoints such as the problem of evil, the apparent redundancy of God in scientific explanations, and the diversity of religious traditions as challenges to the notion of a singular, all-powerful deity. On religious themes, the data indicates that ChatGPT can summarize doctrinal perspectives from multiple faiths, addressing concepts of God as Creator, the role of prophets, and scriptural evidence for and against the existence of a supreme being. In the perceptual domain, ChatGPT highlights personal experiences, crisis moments, and a search for spiritual fulfillment as important influences on belief in God. This includes references to cultural and social cohesion, as well as the psychological comfort that believers often derive from trusting a higher power. From a scientific standpoint, ChatGPT integrates ideas from physics, cosmology, and evolutionary biology, noting that while empirical methods can describe how reality operates, they often remain silent on why reality exists in the first place. Significantly, the AI model remains neutral, clarifying that its responses are drawn from comprehensive but ultimately human-authored sources. This neutrality underscores that any final judgment on God’s existence transcends purely algorithmic logic or data-driven aggregation of viewpoints. The result is an instructive illustration of AI’s ability to amalgamate disparate strands of intellectual tradition while reminding us that existential and spiritual truths may extend beyond the realm of computational discovery.Conclusion In summary, this research reveals that AI, particularly ChatGPT, provides valuable insights into the longstanding debate on God’s existence by assembling and articulating a wide range of arguments gleaned from philosophical texts, religious doctrines, and scientific hypotheses. The thematic diversity detected in the AI’s output illustrates both the richness of human reflection on God and the limitations of seeking absolute certainty through computational means. While ChatGPT can serve as a powerful tool for scholars and students to explore the landscape of arguments around divinity, it does not claim to resolve ultimate metaphysical queries. The study underscores the reality that questions of faith, transcendence, and meaning remain intimately personal and may resist definitive resolution by purely data-driven, logical processes. Rather, AI’s role may best be viewed as a catalyst for deeper inquiry, prompting renewed reflection and dialogue. Future research could refine AI’s capacity to contextualize theological arguments and incorporate more nuanced cultural or linguistic subtleties, yet the core insight stands: the final answer on God’s existence likely resides within the lived experience, contemplative reasoning, and open-hearted seeking of each individual.
)
