Abstract
This article critically evaluates the literature on problem statement formulation and modeling in social science
research. Despite the emphasized importance of defining a research problem, many studies lack a clear
problem statement or exhibit weaknesses in its articulation. The primary challenge lies in the insufficient
discussion of the nature and components of a problem statement. The study reviews existing literature to
propose a coherent and practical framework for constructing a research problem. It posits that a research
problem 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 empirical
reality 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’s
active role in problem formulation. By analyzing the relationship between reality and knowledge, the study
provides a systematic approach to problem articulation, addressing ambiguities in methodological discourse
and offering actionable guidelines for researchers.


Introduction
The formulation of a research problem is pivotal in scientific inquiry, serving as the foundation for hypothesis
generation, methodology selection, and knowledge advancement. However, despite its centrality,
1 Associate professor of Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Dinparast@atu.ac.ir 09125857342
Recived date: 2 - 6 – 2024 accepted date: 23 - 9 - 2024
2
methodological literature often overlooks the operational components of problem articulation. This study
addresses this gap by synthesizing theoretical perspectives on problem formulation, distinguishing
between problem and question, and critiquing reductionist approaches that conflate the two. Drawing on
Popper’s notion of scientific discovery and Creswell’s gap-spotting framework, the article argues that a
research problem is a constructed entity shaped by the researcher’s engagement with existing knowledge and
empirical reality. The study aims to unify fragmented discussions on problem formulation, offering a
structured model applicable across social science disciplines.
Materials & Methods
The 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 problem
formulation, particularly the Conflict and Gap models. Comparative evaluation of these models is conducted
to reveal their shared epistemological foundations. Case studies from administrative and management research
illustrate practical applications of the proposed framework. The analysis integrates qualitative insights with
conceptual rigor, emphasizing the researcher’s role in problem construction.
Results
Two dominant models of problem formulation emerge:
1. Conflict Model: Problems arise from contradictions between empirical observations and theoretical
expectations (e.g., unexpected voting behavior contradicting rational choice theory).
2. Gap Model: Problems stem from identified deficiencies in existing knowledge (e.g., understudied
phenomena or inconsistent findings).
Both models share a common logic: they justify research by highlighting discrepancies that demand
resolution. 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.
Discussion
The article challenges the dichotomy between conflict- and gap-based problem formulation, demonstrating
their epistemological unity. By reinterpreting gaps as implicit conflicts (e.g., gaps reflect unmet expectations
for comprehensive knowledge), the study bridges methodological divides. Practical implications include
guidelines for researchers to articulate problems through structured justification of discrepancies, whether
empirical or theoretical. Critically, the study underscores the necessity of contextualizing problems within
broader scholarly discourse to ensure relevance and rigor. Limitations include the focus on social sciences,
warranting future exploration in interdisciplinary contexts.
Conclusion
This study provides a unified framework for problem formulation, reconciling conflict- and gap-based
approaches under a single epistemological logic. By clarifying the components and justification of research
problems, it equips researchers with tools to construct robust, methodologically sound inquiries. The findings
advocate for reflexive engagement with existing knowledge, emphasizing problem formulation as a dynamic,
iterative process central to scientific advancement.