All the World's a Stage: Stating Your Problem

This time out, our objective, dear cyber-scholars, will be to get a head start on the all-important doctoral research proposal! Specifically, we'll talk about the following key areas:

• The WHAT you are planning to study: "Statement of the Problem" and any associated sub problems;
• Front-ended by WHY you feel this topic/area is important to study: the "Purpose of the Study;" and
• Followed by the SO WHAT - WHO you expect will BENEFIT from your study, and HOW: the "Significance of the Study;"
• And this will all be capped off by the next "Introduction" topic which sort of SETS THE STAGE for the entirety of your study. This would be a good time to review the "What Is A Doctoral Research Proposal" document and follow along regarding the pieces!

  By the way, you'll notice that the above listing of our subtopics is not in the same order that we see them written up and discussed in the proposal! This is my "life can be very non-linear" disclaimer that I make in virtually every 'live' class!

  Turns out that the Introduction, while it is the first major subheading of the proposal (also prospectus and dissertation) can also be the toughest to come up with .. ! (Images of writer's block and all ... !)

    Also, as many of our friends have seen me indicate in Intro to Research, the Statement of the Problem is the heart and soul, driving force of all of the remaining parts of the research (proposal, prospectus, and dissertation itself!)! Thus, although it does not "come first" in the final write-up, you need to have it well in hand as a first step in order to know what to write in the other subsections!

  Sooooo .... let's jump in and work our way through this first cluster of key pieces of the proposal!

  I. Statement of the Problem

  For this all-important identification of WHAT you will do, I am going to refer you to my discussion of the related material in Intro to Research Lesson 1 and Intro to Research Lesson 2

  Things to Watch Out For!
  1. That you truly make this a "lean and mean," very focused identification of WHAT you will do!

     A single sentence might in fact be your best signal that you've done this correctly - rather than a self-imposed worry that "I haven't said enough ... !"

     Lead in with the standard opener, "This study is to .... " and add the relevant keywords that characterize what you plan to do. Review Introduction to Research

     If the sentence looks a bit too "run-on" to you, it might be a clue that you should separate by sub problems. This is common if you are studying a lot of demographic variables, for example.

     "Specifically, this study will identify differences in achievement motivation by the following variables:

     1. level of education attained;
     2. current job position;
     3. years of experience as a teacher; etc., etc.!"

     This is a good way to break up your many variables into discrete sub problems: via such an itemized listing!

  2. Danger! Guess what lots of (well-meaning) dissertation writers do in this subsection, "Statement of the Problem?" Feel that they have to "re-convince the reader" of WHY this particular problem/research question is a 'good thing' to study!"
     • But, we already have a section for that! It is called "Purpose of the Study" and will in fact precede the "Statement of the Problem!"

  3. Danger! Along with the above "need to sell," some other writers feel they need to "over-disclaim" some limitations in their research -- sort of like warning labels on packs of cigarettes or bottles of medication! e.g., why they are not also studying rural schools in addition to urban; or the fact that their chosen method of data collection, survey research, might be susceptible to "response sets," where subjects randomly check off any old responses if they get bored!
     • In the prospectus itself, we have subsections for these too! Any such "boundaries" of the study scope (why this state? county? this school system?) and/or any potential contaminants of the study findings and results (e.g., possible response bias due to mailed in surveys) will be isolated separately and identified under "Delimitations" and "Limitations," respectively!!!

     Bottom Line Time: "Statement of the Problem" very concisely identifies WHAT you plan to do!

     1. Standard opener: "This study is to [insert action words as per Intro to Research Module 2.
     2. Either a question or statement form is OK;
     3. Break up into listings (sub problems) if putting all the variables into a single sentence/question appears unwieldy (please see illustrative example above)
  A footnote: a number of you have wondered about hypotheses. Do I need to include them in addition to my statement of the problem/research question?

  No hard and fast rules here: it depends mainly on the particular preferences of your dissertation chair and/or committee members!

  Used to be the case (still is, to a great degree) that hypotheses are easier to formulate if:

  1. You are doing a totally/mainly quantitative study;
  2. You are doing research in a general area where there's been lots of prior theoretical and research work (so that you can pretty well confidently predict "what goes with what," "if I change this one variable, which other(s) will be affected, and how," etc.)

  Now, compare the above scenario to a purely exploratory qualitative study. You may simply not know enough about "what should be expected to happen under what conditions." There's been little or no prior theoretical and empirical investigation to guide you. Also -- you may not even know what the key variables in the situation are - let alone, their predicted relationships! That's exactly what a purely exploratory qualitative study is designed to do, in fact!

  Under such circumstances, current thinking goes, how can you "go out on a limb" and predict "what will happen as a result of what" if that is your end goal to begin with? You simply don't have the benefit of extensive prior work and/or information to do this: e.g., confidently state a hypothesis up front.

  For more extensively researched prior theories, with concomitant application of inferential (analytic) quantitative statistical tools to "test" such established relationships, it becomes comparatively easier to predict what "should" happen, as well as to specify it in the form of words and/or statistical symbols in the form of a hypothesis.

  So...my advice would be:

  1. Always specify the "open-ended" sentence or question under "Statement of the Problem";
  2. Know thy chair and committee, and add the related hypotheses (also in this subsection and following the "open-ended" form in point # 1, above)if you feel he/she/they will want them!

  P.S. The alternative form, rather than null, is preferred if you are only specifying one hypothesis per sub problem/research question. Or, you can give the pairs, null and matching alternative, per question. Here, too, there is no hard and fast preference -- except, "know thy chair!"

  I can discreetly slip you advance info on your particular chair's preferences if you like; I've happily served with just about everyone!

  II. Purpose of the Study

  1. This indeed, directly precedes the Statement of the Problem!

  2. But since it so closely relates to WHAT you are doing, you really need to 'pin down' your Statement of the Problem first in order to write the best-matching, most closely corresponding "purpose!"

  3. Purpose is the GRAND WHY!

  4. You "sort of sell" your reader on WHY you felt this strong need to do this study - before you then get into the WHAT you will do - the Statement of the Problem!

  5. I often call it a "backward-glancing" section. You are looking back and identifying for your reader, WHO NEEDS TO KNOW/DO WHAT AND WHY - to subtly lead into how YOUR investigation will provide these critically needed answers!

  6. Jumping ahead (deliberately!) to the prospectus, I'd envision 2-3 paragraphs. Let me give you some examples of such "backward-glancing needs, lacks or rationale":

     1. You encounter a "live, in-person" problem at your school, clinic, vocational training center.

     2. You find yourself making related statements like, "Up until now, principals have not been able to ... " "Teachers have consistently experienced difficulty regarding..." "There continues to be a shortage of challenging and relevant hands-on instructional materials for the gifted and talented students..."

     3. Do you see how, in each of the preceding statements, you are identifying WHO NEEDS TO KNOW/DO WHAT, AND WHY? Think very broadly here: really brainstorm any/all affected "key stakeholders:" individuals and/or groups. This (key stakeholders) is a classic evaluation research term meaning any/all of those who may be in any way affected (however remotely or indirectly, at least at first glance) by the policy, program, or procedure. Push the limits! Could there possibly be a ripple effect to parents or the community through the students in the classroom, for instance?

     4. Then, once you've identified the WHO(s!), also identify the currently existing NEEDS, LACKS, GAPS, etc., in knowledge, practice, etc. (that you will then step in to study and try to fill through your own particular choice of topic, variables, research questions, and so forth).

     5. By the way: here's a classic source of a seeming problem that turns into a golden opportunity!
  Students often come to me lamenting, "Mary, my lit review is so thin, it's almost non-existent! I've searched and searched the library and computerized databases, but no one has ever studied it quite like this before! So there's virtually no existing literature!"

  I smile (carefully! so as not to minimize their genuine concern and pain at this point!) and subtly point out: "Then, you're saying that there's a NEED or LACK of existing prior research in this area!" And I then probe for WHO might be needing or lacking such information, and why -- and gently indicate they've got a prime candidate for "Purpose of the Study" as a result!

  I also advise the following at this point:

  1. For your Chapter Two, write around those areas which have been studied, if possible (e.g., it's been tried at the high school level, in science classes, if it's a promising teaching method).

  2. Then for Purpose of the Study, point out the lack by way of comparison, "Although this method has been extensively applied in high school science classes, there is no research to date regarding its application and evaluation at the junior high school science instructional level."
  Voila! WHO (the junior high school students; their teachers; their principals) NEEDS this research to be done!

  And you trade off a "thinner" Chapter Two by having in exchange the "perfect" RATIONALE for WHY YOUR STUDY IS NEEDED - it simply hasn't been done!

  Things To Watch Out For!
  1. In the preceding discussion I pointed out an accidental "spillover" of other "stuff" like rationale/WHY/"Purpose" into the "Statement of the Problem" subsection. Well, now I can get even more specific and tell you that the most frequent error I see is as follows:
     • Students interpret "purpose" to mean, "The purpose of this study is to ... " And - yup, you guessed it - they tell me WHAT they will do under the "Purpose of the Study!"

     • Think savvy marketing! First sell me on why, in "Purpose," and thentell me what in the immediately following "Statement of the Problem!"
  2. I'll come back to this one a bit later: I also tend to see "Significance of the Study" 'stuff' (like that technical term, by the way, "stuff?!") under the "Purpose of the Study!" We'll see in just a bit how these are related, yet distinct, subsections.

     Bottom line time: "Purpose" is the GRAND WHY.

     1. Lay out WHO (any/all individuals/groups) has a NEED TO KNOW or DO something better, that directly will link to what you plan to study;

     2. Indicate these NEEDS TO KNOW/DO in a "backward-glancing" sense -- e.g., lay the groundwork for how, up until know, this hasn't been studied, or they haven't had help in applying a procedure in their jobs or daily lives. (Sneak peek at the very next topic of ours: this "backward glance" is primarily what will distinguish "Purpose stuff" from "Significance stuff!" (My, but I'm giving you such fancy technical terminology this time ... !)
  III. Significance of the Study
  1. Here, I think, is the main point of confusion and "telling apart" dilemma from "Purpose!"

  2. SAME PLAYERS but now in a FUTURISTIC SENSE!
     • "Teachers will [know, do] ... (as a result of what you might find out from your study)."
     • "Principals will [know, do]..."
     • "The gifted and talented primary grade students will [know, do] ... "
       And so on and so forth!

  3. This is your best guess as to WHO you expect will BENEFIT, and specifically, HOW!

  4. My own chair called this the "SO WHAT" of your study! What are the consequences for the world, as you see it -- the predicted specific positives?

  5. This may sound redundant to "Purpose" and -- get this -- in a way, it's supposed to!

  6. See now why we called "Purpose" a "backward glance?!" In purpose, you are saying WHO NEEDS (HASN'T KNOWN/HAD) WHAT!

  7. Now, in "Significance," it's those same "WHO(s)" and HOW YOUR STUDY IS EXPECTED TO FILL THEIR NEEDS! It also averages 2-3 paragraphs in the eventual prospectus/dissertation.

  8. This means future tense verbs (please note the "will know/do" above) for the "Significance" subsection! This is one rather apparent clue, in fact, that you are on the 'right track' in writing your "Significance." Are you making such future tense ("will ... ") statements or assertions? That is indeed the idea!

  9. As far as the "redundancy," you'll learn a delightful principle in Dissertation Seminar if you haven't learned it already: "Packard's Principle of Redundant Uniqueness!" Namely (hope I do this justice, Dick .. !), you basically say the same thing over and over in different places throughout the dissertation, but with different relative emphasis/detail! Sort of like the principle (trite but true!) that many of us learned in our high school journalism class: 1) first you tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em; 2) then you tell 'em; 3) then you conclude by telling 'em what you just told 'em! See what I mean? Quick preview to provide the 'road map' in the Intro; then detail in the middle; then a look back at the major themes in the conclusion - like in our discussion of Chapter Two, Module #3!
     
     It's the same thing with the dissertation. If I had to give you a general rule of thumb here, it would be this: if you think you're 'doing overkill' or 'being redundant/wordy,' chances are you're NOT. I'm more likely to ask you to expand on things than to point out redundancies.
  And so it is with the Purpose and Significance:
  
  Things To Watch Out For!
  1. Mirror image of Point # 2, our preceding discussion! While you're thinking about the WHO(s) and WHAT(s), you slip into "...and there is currently no research in that area," "...and principals have not had a valid and reliable observation procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of peer mentoring," etc. Subtle slip, to be sure -- but do you see how, in the preceding examples, you've "caught the backward glance" again?! That is: you've gone back to selling the NEED (prime Purpose) as opposed to "confidently predicting the future" ("principals will ...") -- that is, "Significance." Again, that future verb tense in your writing will be a good clue for you!

  2. Related to this: a bit of "doctoral student researcher timidity" (believe me, I still understand all too well about that feeling...!). It goes something like this - consciously or subconsciously: "How can I 'go out on a limb like that and predict who'll be better off and how?! Why, Mary, this is only my doctoral proposal -- the 'rough/rough plan,' as you say -- I haven't done my study yet, nor collected and analyzed my findings! So how in the world can I say 'who is expected to be better off, and how?!'

     To which I reply (again, empathetically! I too struggle with self-confidence ... !), "Your best guesses are not only A-OK, but highly desirable!" To put it to you another way, here's what I often tell comps-takers (even as we speak!): "You probably know more than you think you do!"

     These best guesses can, and should, emanate from:

     1. your practical experience;
     2. your own prior research in this area; and
     3. YES! even your hunches!
  And that leads us to another important point - one which I touched upon in our first lesson packet:

  You'll get a '2nd chance' to change your mind, once you have completed the study and analyzed your findings, to make any changes/corrections/modifications/deletions to this "who will be better off and how!" That will happen in Chapter Five's "Implications!" So, you see, it's OK to guess now: it's understood that you'll revisit this issue upon completion of your study and close out your dissertation with a more definitive identification of expected benefits and beneficiaries!

  

  So -- don't be afraid to go out on a limb now with your Significance! It's not carved in stone and we won't hold you to it (them) if you change your mind later - promise!

  Bottom line time: Significance is your "BEST GUESS PREDICTIONS" of WHO will be "BETTER OFF" (as a result of your choosing to undertake your particular study) and HOW.

  1. Links to the same WHO(s) as in Purpose; but

  2. Is futuristic: what will these WHO(s) now HAVE/KNOW/DO BETTER - that they are CURRENTLY LACKING as per Purpose?!

  ---

  Once you have finished you should:
  

  Go on to Framing Your Problem Statement
  or
  Go back to All the World's a Stage: Framing the Problem Statement

  E-mail M. Dereshiwsky at statcatmd@aol.com
  Call M. Dereshiwsky at (520) 523-1892

  ---

  

  Copyright © 1999 Northern Arizona University
  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED