Theoretical and Practical Analysis in Formulating Research Problems: A Literature Review

Nita Puspitawaty; Eva Hermala

doi:10.31943/afkarjournal.v9i1.1934

Authors

Nita Puspitawaty Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Eva Hermala Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31943/afkarjournal.v9i1.1934

Keywords:

Research Problem, Characteristics Of The Problem, Research Questions, Formulation Techniques

Abstract

This study aims to identify key elements in the preparation of research problems, including characteristics, questions, sources, and research problem formulation techniques. This review uses a literature method by analyzing various articles and scientific books relevant to the topic, which are selected through strict inclusion criteria to ensure the quality and relevance of the data. The main findings suggest that a good research problem should have specific characteristics, such as relevance, clarity, and usefulness, which allow the research to contribute significantly in its field of science. The study also reveals that research questions should ideally be directed and testable, thus providing a solid basis for the formulation of research hypotheses and methodologies. In addition, the sources of research problems vary, including from empirical observations, previous literature, and theoretical gaps, which together enrich the context of the research. Effective problem formulation techniques involve an analytical and reflective approach, which takes into account problematic conditions in the literature, such as inconsistencies in findings or the need for a theory update. These findings are expected to be a reference for researchers in selecting and formulating research problems that have an impact and can encourage the quality and relevance of research in various disciplines.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alkhadim, G. S. (2022). Cronbach’s Alpha and Semantic Overlap Between Items: A Proposed Correction and Tests of Significance. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815490

Brincks, A., Montag, S., Howe, G. W., Huang, S., Siddique, J., Ahn, S., Sandler, I. N., Pantin, H., & Brown, C. H. (2018). Addressing Methodologic Challenges and Minimizing Threats to Validity in Synthesizing Findings from Individual-Level Data Across Longitudinal Randomized Trials. Prevention Science, 19, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0769-1

Brugman, G. M. (1991). Problem finding: Discovering and formulating problems. European Journal of High Ability, 2(2), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0937445910020210

Chih-Pei, H. U., & Chang, Y.-Y. (2017). John W. Creswell, research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 4(2), 205–207.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Research. In Sage Publication. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbe.4.485.1

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 269–284.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). PENELITIAN KUALITATIF & DESAIN RISET Memilih di antara Lima Pendekatan. In Mycological Research (Vol. 94, Issue 4, p. 522).

Evans, T. C., & Britton, J. C. (2018). Improving the psychometric properties of dot-probe attention measures using response-based computation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 60, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.01.009

Gong, S., Cho, J., & Lee, C. (2018). A reliability comparison method for OSINT validity analysis. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14(12), 5428–5435. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2857213

Hu, Y., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Statistical assumptions in L2 research: A systematic review. In Second Language Research (Vol. 37, Issue 1, pp. 171–184). https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319877433

Ivankova, N. V, & Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction, 23, 135–161.

Jaroszewski, A. C., Kleiman, E. M., Simone, P. K., & Nock, M. K. (2020). First-person stimuli: Improving the validity of stimuli in studies of suicide and related behaviors. Psychological Assessment, 32(7), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000823

Kiesner, J., Eisenlohr-Moul, T., & Mendle, J. (2020). Evolution, the Menstrual Cycle, and Theoretical Overreach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 1113–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906440

Lahti, J., & Troychak, M. (1983). Formulating permanent planning strategies. Social Work with Groups, 5(4), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v05n04_06

Ledford, J. R. (2018). No Randomization? No Problem: Experimental Control and Random Assignment in Single Case Research. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017723110

Lee, D., Kanzawa-Lee, G., Knoerl, R., Wyatt, G., & Smith, E. (2019). Characterization of Internal Validity Threats to Phase III Clinical Trials for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Management: A Systematic Review. In Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing (Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 318–332). https://doi.org/10.4103/apjon.apjon_14_19

López-Cepero, J. (2020). Current status of animal-assisted interventions in scientific literature: A critical comment on their internal validity. Animals, 10(6), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10060985

Pimentel, S. D., & Kelz, R. R. (2020). Optimal Tradeoffs in Matched Designs Comparing US-Trained and Internationally Trained Surgeons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 115(532), 1675–1688. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1720693

Ronkainen, N. J., & Wiltshire, G. (2021). Rethinking validity in qualitative sport and exercise psychology research: a realist perspective. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1637363

Rossato, C. J. L., Uphill, M. A., Swain, J., & Coleman, D. A. (2018). The development and preliminary validation of the Challenge and Threat in Sport (CAT-Sport) Scale. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2016.1182571

Šarkić, B., Douglas, J. M., Simpson, A., Vasconcelos, A., Scott, B. R., Melitsis, L. M., & Spehar, S. M. (2021). Frequency of peripheral vestibular pathology following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of literature. In International Journal of Audiology (Vol. 60, Issue 7, pp. 479–494). https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2020.1811905

Slocum, T. A., Pinkelman, S. E., Joslyn, P. R., & Nichols, B. (2022). Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple-Baseline Design Variations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(3), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00326-1

Soydan, H. (2002). Formulating research problems in practitioner-researcher partnerships. Social Work Education, 21(3), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470220136876

Statham, V., Emerson, L. M., & Rowse, G. (2019). A systematic review of self-report measures of paranoia. In Psychological Assessment (Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 139–158). https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000645

Stoa, R., Chu, T. L., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2022). Potential Potholes: Predicting Challenges and Learning Outcomes in Research Methods in Psychology Courses. Teaching of Psychology, 49(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320979881

Verbree, A. R., Toepoel, V., & Perada, D. (2020). The Effect of Seriousness and Device Use on Data Quality. Social Science Computer Review, 38(6), 720–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319841027