Formulating a Research Problem Statement: Research Objectives and Research Questions
Standalone blog version with auto-anchors & floating Back-to-Top.
Introduction
Honestly, I was growing a bit weary of revisiting this topic—I first wrote about it over 38 years ago (Kristaung, 1997), covering just two approaches. But research practice has evolved: we now talk about four ways to frame a research problem (the gap, hierarchical, problematic situation, and journal-based approaches). Why does this matter? Because the research problem is the foundation of any study. As Ali and Pandya (2021) observe, writing a dissertation “typically starts with writing the research problem statement,” and many students struggle with this step. They bluntly note that “writing a research problem statement is difficult by itself.” Likewise, Wisse and Roeland (2022) find that research driven by sharp, focused questions “greatly raised the quality of publications”. In short, a clear problem statement guides the whole project and makes the research stronger; a weak problem spells trouble.
With that in mind, let’s explore each of the four approaches in turn, explaining how they work and what to watch out for. We’ll cite classic guides (including Indonesian sources) and recent literature to give a balanced, up-to-date view.
The Gap Approach
The gap approach is the classic, intuitive method. It looks for a discrepancy between what should be (the ideal or theory) and what is (current reality). In other words, ask: where does reality fall short of theory or expectations? For example, textbooks might say that production efficiency should reach 100 units/hour, but a factory consistently hits only 80. That difference is the “gap.” Other common contrasts are theoretical vs. practical, expected vs. actual, or good vs. bad.
- Theoretical vs. Reality: What does existing research or theory predict, and how does the real world differ?
- Expected vs. Actual: Is the outcome lower (or higher) than standards or targets?
- Ideal vs. Real: Compare a benchmark (best practice, regulatory guideline, etc.) with what’s happening on the ground.
Spotting such a gap often points directly to a researchable problem. For instance, if evidence shows that customer satisfaction in an industry lags behind what models say it should be, that gap is the problem to investigate. In fact, Farooq (2021) and others note that identifying a literature gap naturally “leads to problem identification,” giving you a clear focus. (See also Alvehus’ discussion of “gap-spotting in extant literature.”)
However, beware of superficial gaps. You must ask why the gap exists. A phenomenon might just be a symptom of a deeper issue. Kristaung (2011) warns that researchers should distinguish a surface symptom from the root problem. For example, occasional poor test results in a system might be a symptom, whereas flawed processes are the real issue. If the gap could be closed by a quick managerial fix (say, replacing a broken machine), that isn’t really a research problem – it’s a practical fix. Methodology guides stress that a genuine research problem “must be significant, [and] researchable” and should allow for systematic investigation. In practice, after spotting a gap you often need to refine it into a precise research question. For example, instead of just asking why outputs are lower than expected, you might drill down to whether worker training quality or equipment age is the main cause. In sum, the gap approach is powerful for inspiration, but you must carefully formulate a research-worthy question from the gap.
The Hierarchical Approach
The hierarchical (or tiered) approach starts from the idea that organizations and systems have multiple layers of challenges. Think of any company: it likely has strategic issues (vision, market positioning), departmental issues (finance, marketing, HR), and operational issues (day-to-day processes). To use this approach, we conceptually scan an organization’s hierarchy of problems. For example, a business student might start by asking, “Does this company have broad strategy problems, or is the issue in customer service or production?” By moving down the hierarchy, you can find a problem that matches your interests and field.
Typical layers to consider might include:
- Strategic Level: Broad organizational challenges like vision, mission alignment, or overall competitiveness.
- Departmental Level: Functional problems in areas such as marketing (e.g. brand decline), finance (e.g. cash flow issues), human resources (e.g. high turnover), etc.
- Operational Level: Day-to-day processes and efficiency, like logistics bottlenecks or equipment malfunctions.
For instance, a marketing student might ask whether customer satisfaction (a strategic concern) is hurting sales. If a gap exists there, it becomes the research problem.
A key point: not every issue needs research. If a solution is obvious and purely managerial (e.g. just “install a new software” or “provide basic training”), then it isn’t a valid research problem. Booth et al. (2016) emphasize that a proper research problem “points to the need for meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation”. In other words, make sure the issue you pick truly requires systematic study. If you identify a problem at some level (say, falling sales), ask whether answers already exist (maybe it’s a seasonal effect) or if simple action would fix it. Only if it remains unclear should it be researched. If the issue passes that test—significance and uncertainty—it can be framed as a research problem. In summary, the hierarchical approach grounds your problem in real organizational context, but you must verify that the problem is narrow enough and complex enough to merit research.
The Problematic Situation Approach
This approach (introduced by Ihalauw, 2000) is more introspective. It acknowledges that researchers often begin in a bit of a fix: you might have multiple possible ideas or you might feel uncertain which issue is real. That confusion itself is a “problematic situation.” The advice here is: it’s normal to start with a messy, fuzzy situation. Instead of forcing a premature question, use the confusion as a clue that you’re in the right place—now carefully explore.
Practically speaking, the problematic situation approach means: take stock of all your ideas and doubts. For example, suppose you have idea A for a study, but then idea B pops up and both seem promising. Don’t panic; this is a sign you need to explore further before committing. You might do a quick literature scan or informal interviews related to each idea. You might map out the pros and cons of each. The goal is to find which idea has a clear gap or needs investigation. If one idea feels murky, it's okay to pivot and focus on the other. Open-minded researchers often iterate this way (as Chen et al. 2022 describe).
Some strategies when in a problematic situation:
- List your potential ideas or concerns. Don’t censor yourself—write down both strong and weak problem candidates.
- Do quick reconnaissance. For each idea, do a bit of preliminary reading or discussion. Does the literature even mention it? Are there clues or data?
- Compare and prioritize. Which idea has clearer evidence of a gap or more significance? Which aligns with your interests and resources?
- Narrow it down (or combine). Often one idea will emerge as more concrete, or you may refine A and B into one better problem.
In essence, this approach is about patience and reflection. It validates that start-up confusion is normal. If you feel unsure, that uncertainty highlights areas to explore. By working through the ambiguity (even doing small pilot studies or brainstorming sessions), a crisp problem statement will usually emerge. Rather than a formula, the problematic situation approach offers encouragement: your instincts that “something’s not clear here” are valuable, so dig in until you resolve that doubt. This often involves keeping a flexible mindset and iterating between ideas until one solidly answers the question “What exactly should I study?”
The Journal-Based (Literature-Based) Approach
This modern approach says: start with the academic literature itself. Conduct a thorough review of recent journal articles in your topic area and look for explicit research gaps. Many papers end with a “Future Research” or “Limitations” section that directly suggests what still needs to be done. For example, an article might conclude “the effect of X on Y remains unclear,” or “further research should examine Z in different contexts.” Those statements are gold mines for research problems. If top journal authors are essentially saying “more work needed here,” you have clear permission to investigate.
The advantage is two-fold. First, you ensure your problem is grounded in current science. Basing your problem on published gaps means it’s likely novel and relevant. Second, it aligns with scientific standards of clarity and reproducibility. Good problem statements set up questions others can replicate or extend. For instance, Alfuth et al. (2025) highlight that aligning your problem, objectives, and questions carefully helps “prevent… research [that] is likely to contribute to research waste”. In practical terms, this means a literature-based problem is precise enough to design a clear method and avoid ambiguity.
The journal-based approach says: let the literature guide you. Seek the unanswered questions that scholars explicitly mention. This ensures your work is timely, addresses open issues, and meets the usual research criteria (clarity, specificity, etc.). It’s an efficient way to guarantee novelty and to stay “in conversation” with the field.
Research Objectives
Once you have a clear problem, you break it down into research objectives. Objectives are concise statements of what you intend to accomplish in addressing the problem. They usually start with action verbs like “to analyze,” “to evaluate,” or “to understand.” Well-defined objectives map out the steps of your study. For example, if your problem is “customer churn is higher than expected,” objectives might be “(1) to measure churn rates over the past 5 years; (2) to identify factors correlated with churn; (3) to evaluate interventions to reduce churn.”
Clear objectives keep the study on track. They should align directly with the problem statement. If your objectives are too broad or vague, the research can wander. As Van der Waldt (2025) notes, beginning with an overly broad topic makes it hard to set focused objectives and can lead to unfocused studies. In practice, check each objective against the problem: does it push the investigation forward on that issue? If an objective feels too general, narrow it. Good objectives ensure feasibility (you can actually accomplish them) and relevance. In short, objectives are your roadmap from problem to answers.
Research Questions
Research questions are the specific queries your study will answer, derived directly from your objectives. They pinpoint exactly what you will investigate. A good research question is clear, focused, and researchable – not so broad that it’s unanswerable, nor so narrow that it’s trivial. For instance, instead of asking “What affects performance?” a sharper question would be “How does employee training (X) affect productivity (Y) in small retail firms?”
Practitioners often use checklists or frameworks to craft questions. As Van der Waldt (2025) explains, useful tools include FINERMAPS (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential Value, Publishable, Systematic), PEO (Population, Exposure, Outcome), PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time), and SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). These frameworks prompt you to include key elements. For example, Van der Waldt shows how FINERMAPS and PICOT ensure your question is ethically sound and time-bound.
As Purvis et al. (2024) emphasize, a well-phrased research question “represents the facets of inquiry that the researcher most wants to explore”. In other words, the question should crisply reflect the core of the problem. Keep asking yourself: “Will this question be answered by my study? Is it specific to the problem and objectives?” If yes, you’re on the right track.
Some common frameworks for formulating research questions include:
- FINERMAPS (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential Value, Publishable, Systematic) – encourages evaluation of all important study criteria.
- PEO (Population, Exposure, Outcome) – useful for qualitative or observational questions to specify whom and what you’re studying.
- PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) – structures clinical or experimental questions by specifying the intervention and outcomes within a timeframe.
- SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) – tailored for qualitative/mixed methods, focusing on the sample and phenomenon of interest.
These tools help ensure your question is comprehensive yet concise. Ultimately, the best research question is one that is tightly aligned with your problem and objectives and open enough to allow meaningful investigation.
Conclusion
Formulating a research problem is both creative and disciplined. No matter which approach you use (gap, hierarchical, problematic situation, or journal-based), the goal is the same: find an issue that truly matters and is answerable through research. Writing a thesis or paper is essentially reasoning about real-world issues, so your problem must be grounded in either a genuine gap/dilemma (approaches 1 and 3), relevant organizational context (approach 2), or current scholarly conversation (approach 4).
Remember Booth et al.’s guidance that a well-defined problem “depict[s] what is to be determined and [the] scope of the study”. In practice, this means explicitly linking the problem to your objectives and research questions. Alfuth and colleagues (2025) go further, advising that once a problem is identified, researchers should “square [it] with the objectives, research question, and hypothesis” of the planned study. In short, ensure nothing floats freely: your problem, objectives, questions (and hypotheses, if any) should all line up logically.
To wrap up, keep in mind: the research problem is the heart of your work. It should emerge from a real gap or dilemma, fit the context of your field, and be grounded in up-to-date literature. It must be significant enough to warrant investigation, yet narrow enough to define a clear study. By combining these approaches as needed and always checking that the issue truly requires research (is researchable), you’ll set a solid foundation for a valuable study. Happy researching!
References
- Alfuth, M., Klemp, J., Schmidt, A., Streese, L., Ramadanov, N., & Prill, R. (2025). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 25, Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02468-7
- Ali, A., & Pandya, S. (2021). A four stage framework for the development of a research problem statement in doctoral dissertations. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16, 469–485. https://doi.org/10.28945/4839
- Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
- Hermawan, A., & Kristaung, R. (2014). Metodologi Penelitian Bisnis. Lembaga Penerbit FE Universitas Trisakti.
- Ihalauw, J. (2000). Bangunan Teori. Satya Wacana Christian University Press.
- Kristaung, R. (1997). Mengapa sulit membuat masalah penelitian. Meditek, 5(11), 1–7.
- Kristaung, R. (2011). Metodologi Penelitian Sistem Informasi dan Manajemen Informatika. Mitra Wacana Media.
- Kristaung, R., & Augustine, Y. (2018). Metodologi Penelitian Bisnis dan Akuntansi. Dian Rakyat.
- Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A skill-building approach (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
- Wisse, M., & Roeland, J. (2022). Building blocks for developing a research question: The ABC-model. Teaching Theology & Religion, 25(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12603
