Problem FormulationMGMT 8101, Theory Building & Research Design

Notes by Prof. Andy Van de Ven

Plan for Class• Questions & ideas about problem formulation – chapter 3• Moves in formulating a problem• Student examples of research problems (as time permits)

© Andrew H. Van de Ven, Carlson School, U. of Minnesota, MGMT8101 Theory Building & Research Design PhD Seminar, Spring 2007

Questions & Ideas about Problem Formulation

• Problem formulation is the anchor of a research proposal– It applies to either problem-driven & theory-driven

research

• Discuss key questions or problems you have about problem formulation from the readings.

What is a Research Problem?• Problems vary in clarity:

– A gap between expectations and outcomes– An anomaly in our theory of the world– An unclear but interesting issue

• Problems are:– Perceived by someone; they do not exist out there.– Often biased judgments; a Type III error– Often imaginary; not grounded in reality– Often uncreative, don’t go beyond the information

given.

Four Related Activities in Problem Formulation

Activities and their relations over time

Situating Problem

Grounding Problem

Diagnosing Problem

Resolving Problem

Situating the Problem

• Be reflexive – Problems don’t exist “out there”– A problem from whose perspective? For what purpose?

• Focus – The topic or issue requiring attention.– Who & what is in foreground & background

• Level of analysis – individual, group, organization– What things are bigger, smaller, or attributes of problem

• Scope – How deep, broad, & long is the problem?– Should decrease with familiarity; watch for scope creep

Grounding the Problem in Reality• An exploratory study into the nature, context & what is

known about the problem domain• Who, what where, when, why & how the problem exists

– in particular (up close) with example, anecdote or experience– in general (from afar) with data on prevalence & context of problem

• Techniques – Talk to people who experience & know the problem/issue– Conduct interviews, NGT meetings, Cognitive mapping techniques– Review literature to understand & situate the problem

• Be aware of biases in human judgments

Diagnosing the Problem• Analyzing information about a phenomenon by applying models to

ascertain the nature of the problem in context.– If as expected, have well-structured problem for theory testing– If unexpected, have anomaly requiring theory development

• Process of Diagnosis1. Classify elements or symptoms of phenomenon into categories2. Aggregate categories to infer a problem3. Heuristic matching of problem with a possible solution/conjecture

• Does solution exist for problem or must one be created?4. Refine the solution/conjecture to the case at hand.

• Relationships among diagnostic steps– Data-directed, solution-directed, & opportunistic search– Going beyond the information given

Inference Structure of Problem Diagnosis

Data Abstractions ⇔ Solution Abstractions

Data Refinement Abstraction Data Solution

Source: Clancey, 1985, p. 296.

Selecting the Research Question

• What part of the problem diagnosis merits research attention?– Good questions pose dilemmas, subvert obvious “truths,” and force

incongruities upon our attention (Bruner)• Moves in formulating research questions:

– State question analytically by relating/comparing concepts.– Relate the question to your problem description.– A research question ends in a question mark, not a period.– A question should entertain several plausible answers.

• Bring question full circle by considering its consequences:– Will answer solve a key part of the problem from user’s perspective?– Will answer substantively improve the situation?– Will it advance knowledge beyond the status quo answer?

A Theory is an Answer to Research Question• An explanation of an expected relationship between two or

more concepts within a set of boundary conditions.• The explanation includes an argument.

Y

Concept

Construct

Variables

X

Concept

Construct

Variables

Proposition

Hypothesis

Boundary Conditions (Assumptions)

Abs

trac

tion

Lev

el

High

Low

•••

•••

Assignment for Next WeekReadings:• Yin, "Case Study Research", Sage, 1989.• Supplemetary readings:

1. Dougherty, "Grounded theory building,” in Baum, 20012. Eisenhardt, "Building theory from Case Study Research," AMR, 1989 3. Tsoukas, "The validity of Idiographic Research Explanation," AMR, 19894. Barley, "Images of Imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work," OS,

1990Research Problem Statement• Submit problem formulation statement with evaluation cover sheet.

Mgmt 8101 Research Problem Formulation Report Evaluation Form Criteria for evaluating the problem formulation report: 1. The problem/phenomenon is clearly situated

• In terms of perspective, focus, level, and scope 2. The problem/phenomenon is clearly grounded in reality

• It states who, what, where, when, why & how the problem exists • in particular (up close) with example, experience or observations • in general (from afar) with data on prevalence and context of problem

3. The problem is clearly diagnosed

• data elements are defined and classified into key categories or concepts • patterns or relationships among categories are analyzed and aggregated • A heuristic inference (a claim with reasons) is made for the problem • The problem is refined to fit the particular case

4. The research question:

• is stated in analytical and researchable terms. • permits more than one plausible answer.

Student examples of problem formulation(5-10 minutes each as time permits)

• State the phenomenon or problem domain• Situate the problem

– perspective, focus, level, scope

• Ground the problem up close & from afar• Diagnose the problem• State the research question

Some Techniques of Problem Formulation

• Medical diagnosis model – Hippocrates• Cognitive mapping• Nominal Group Technique• Classification & theory building – Christensen• Biases in Human Judgment – Bazerman

Reality to HippocratesPhiliscus lived by the wall. He took to his bed with acute fever on the first day and sweating. Night uncomfortable.

Second day. General exacerbation; later a small clyster moved the bowels well. A restful night.

Third day. Early and until midday he appeared to have lost the fever; but towards evening acute fever with sweating, thirst, dry tongue, black urine. An uncomfortable night, without sleep; completely out of his mind.

Fourth day. All symptoms exacerbated; black urine. A more comfortable night, and urine of a better colour.

Fifth day. About midday slight epitasis (nosebleed) of unmixed blood. Urine varied, with scattered, round particles suspended in it, resembling semen; they did not settle. On the application of a suppository the patient passed, with flatulence, scanty excreta. A distressing night, snatches of sleep, irrational talk; extremities everywhere cold, and would not get warm again; black urine; snatches of sleep towards dawn; speechless; cold sweat; extremities livid. About midday on the sixth day the patient died. The breathing throughout, as though he were recollecting to do it, was rare and large. Spleen raised in a round swelling. Cold sweats all the time. The exacerbations on even days.

L. J. Henderson, "From Introductory Lectures: Sociology 23," at Harvard University in the late 1930's; reprinted in Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1967, pp. 236-240.

Three kinds of observations to describe reality

• Single observations in the first part of the illnessBare observations of behaviors uncolored by theory, condensed to the verylimit• Uniformities observed over time in the development of the patient's illnessRepetitive patterns observed over time in a case• Uniformities across cases; i.e., recurrence in different cases of single events or eventsequences.

Steps in a Nominal Group Meeting1. Silent writing of ideas on question

No one talks, everyone thinks and writes2. Round-robin recording of ideas on chart

Leader writes an idea from each person on chart; proceeds around group.No one talks out of turn to evaluate ideas.Members listen and present new ideas when their turn comes.

3. Preliminary vote on ideasMembers silently list 3-5 best ideas on their own papers.Leader tabulates votes on flip chart.

4. DiscussionGeneral discussion, evaluation, and debate of ideas on chart.

5. Final vote on ideasProcedure is the same as step 3, and meeting concludes.

Reasons for Steps in Nominal Group MeetingA. Silent writing of ideas on question

• provides focus, time for creativity without interruptions• avoids conformity, competition, & status problems• avoids evaluation and jumping to conclusions

B. Round-robin recording of ideas on chart• forces equal sharing and participation• encourages more ideas through “hitch-hiking”• depersonalizes ideas & tolerates conflicting ideas

C. Clarification of each idea on chart• clarifies each idea before jumping to conclusions• each idea is as important as another before vote

D. Preliminary vote on priorities• allows “trial run” & avoids premature conclusions• provides focus on important issues• silent voting forces equality & avoids influence of others

E. Discussion of preliminary vote• encourages minority opinions & clarifies misunderstandings• promotes attacking ideas on wall (not people)• provides preparation for decision

F. Final vote on priorities• provides written “minutes” of group ideas & decision• promotes sense of accomplishment & conclusion• motivates involvement in future efforts

For further information, see A. Delbecq, A. Van de Ven, and D. Gustafson, “Group Techniques for Program Planning,” Scott-Foresman Pub., 1975.

Decision BiasesAvailability Heuristic• Ease of Recall• Retrievability• Presumed AssociationsRepresentativeness Heuristic• Insensitivity to Base Rates• Insensitivity to Sample Size• Misconceptions of Chance• Regression to the Mean• The Conjunction Fallacy

Anchoring and Adjustment• Insufficient Anchor Adjustment• Conjunctive & Disjunctive Events

Bias• OverconfidenceGroup Decision Biases• Group think• Risky shift• Conformity• Falling into a “rut”• Conflict avoidance

Source: Max Bazerman, “Biases,” Chapter 15 in B.M. Staw (ed.), Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Second Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 199−223.

Source: Eden, C., Jones, S., & Sims, D. (1983) Messing about in problems: An informal structured approach to their identification and management. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fig 4.2, p. 42.

Steps in Developing a Cognitive Map of a Problem

Q1.

Q2.

Q3.

Q4.

Clayton M. Christensen and David M. Sundahl (2001)