IDENTIFICATION AND FORMULATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

Author(s): S.L. Sharma

Source: Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 24, No. 2/3, SILVER JUBILEE NUMBER
(APRIL-SEPTEMBER 1982), pp. 662-668
Published by: Indian Law Institute
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952229
Accessed: 18-07-2019 03:10 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian Law Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Indian Law Institute

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IDENTIFICATION AND FORMULATION OF
RESEARCH PROBLEM

S.L. Sharma*

Introduction

IDENTIFICATION AND formulation of problem constitute the starting

phase of research enterprise. Its importance cannot be emphasised enough,
for success of a research enterprise depends on the selection of an appro-
priate problem and its proper formulation. While a faulty selection may
fail to sustain researcher's interest in the study, a deficient formulation may
land the researcher in unanticipated difficulties at later stages.
For the same reason, it is a challenging and time consuming task.
Merton, a renowned sociologist, observes :"[I]t is often more difficult to find
and to formulate a problem than to solve it." This indeed is a task that
merits serious attention and tremendous patience. Darwin, for instance, took
years to find and formulate his problem. Impatience in this respect does
not pay. Though patience need not be mistaken here for complacence
which is what may happen in many cases.
This task has been formalised in some ways in the academic world.
Synopsis, for instance, is one formalised version of it. Every student
working towards a research degree is required to submit a synopsis. A
synopsis is nothing but statement of a well formulated research problem.
Project proposal is another formalised version of it. Any researcher
seeking grant from a research funding organisation is required to submit
a project proposal. Its academic part is nothing but statement of a
carefully formulated research problem.
From the above it is clear that the importance of finding and
formulating a research problem has been formally recognised in the acade
mie circles. What is, however, surprising is that the existing textual
literature on research methods does not seem to attach sufficient importance
to it. In most books on research methods there is not so much a
mention of this topic. Even where it is included in the contents, its
treatment is somewhat formalistic as well as sketchy.
This article seeks to present some of the ideas of the author, based on
his experience as well as reading, on this relatively neglected theme. In
the interest of systematic exposition, it is proposed to discuss the subject
in two parts : Identification of problem and formulation of it. The focus
will be on reviewing the existing state of affairs and on presenting some
guiding considerations. Attempt will be made to draw illustrations as far

♦Professor and Chairman, Department of Sociology, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1982] IDENTIFICATION AND FORMULATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEM 663

as possible from the Indian context on the one hand and from legal
research on the other.

Identification of problem

It will be in order to begin by defining a research problem. A research

problem is not the same thing as a social problem. A research problem
is defined by intellectual curiosity while a social problem is defined by the
values of a group. A situation may be problematic for one group but it
may not be so for another, depending on their differing value systems.
Increase in incidence of crime may be a problem for social workers, but it
may not be so for the underworld of criminals. For a researcher, on the
other hand, it is not only the crime but also the law abiding behaviour
which constitutes a problem. It is as important, and from an intellectual
vantage point even more important, to ask why people adhere to law
abiding behaviour. In no sense is law abiding behaviour a social problem.
But it may be an important research problem. Thus a research problem is
a cognitiv phenomenon while a social problem an evaluative one. This
does not imply that a social problem cannot turn into a research problem.
A social problem may turn into a research problem once it is so formulated
by a researcher.
What are some of the sources of finding a research problem? Taking
a cue from the existing practices, one can immediately mention the
following :

(1) Research supervisor.

(2) Research literature.
(3) Research funding agencies.
It is well known that students desirous of pursuing research for a
degree generally leave it to the supervisor to find and suggest a problem
for them. This is so partly because they do not want to strain their mind
and partly because they begin with a sense of total dependence on the
supervisor. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that most research
students look up to the supervisor to get a research problem assigned to
them. They seem to have hardly any interest of their own in the problem,
let alone a sense of involvement in it. The students who come up with a
research problem on their own are more of an exception than a rule.
The research supervisors in turn draw upon the existing research
literature for searching a problem. Research books, research journals
and trend reports are some of the more important components of research
literature which in one way or another throw up research problems.
From such literature one may get a clue to an unexplored area, a hypo-
thesis to test, or a new direction of inquiry. One may as well adopt a
problem in toto for investigation in a different society. In fact, quite a
sizeable part of social science research in India is a result of the study of
research problems borrowed from American and European journals. That
is the reason why it remains secondhand.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 664 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 24 : 2 & 3

A third source of problem finding is the lists of research priority a

drawn up by the research funding agencies. The Indian Council of So
Science Research, for instance, has identified subjects of research prio
which will get funds on preferential basis. At the time of elections, similar
special funds are earmarked by some research sponsoring organisation
election studies. There is no dearth of professional researchers who w
quickly change their research interests in order to take advantage of s
research funds.
The above sources and practices of problem finding are fairly wide-
spread. All of them are, however, external sources. What they miss in
common is the importance of subjective factor in the choice of a problem.
In each case the researcher tends to work on a problem given by others-
a supervisor, or an author of a trend report, or an editor of a list of
priority areas. The problem does not seem to come to him from within.
His role is only that of a chooser out of a given number of research
problems.
This lack of subjective factor in identifying a problem is, in our consi-
dered opinion, at the root of much of the bogus research that we have
in social sciences in India. It renders the research activity a ritualistic
activity. How can one produce quality research unless the research
problem has sprung from within. There is a substantial difference between
choosing a problem out of a given list and identifying one out of one's
own suffering.
Without undermining the value of the existing sources and practices of
problem finding, we should like to underline the centrality of the subjective
factor in identifying a research problem. Our submission is that it will
help improve the quality of research if the researcher works on a problem
identified out of a suffering experience. Suffering, it will be agreed, is the
source of creative ideas, and more so is intellectual suffering. Intellectual
suffering means a sense of deep excitement about the problem arising
either out of one's experience of having lived through that problem in
actual life or out of one's empathetic experience of it. Such an experience
turns into intellectual suffering the moment one suffers it at intellectual
plane over and above the experiential plane. Take, for instance, apprentice-
ship in legal profession. A junior working with a senior lawyer has to
undergo certain experiences which are likely to give him a perceptive
insight into the nature of junior-senior relationship. He knows it better
than anybody else where the shoe pinches. If he is able to relive this
experience at intellectual level and work on it, the output is likely to be
masterpiece. An outsider who has not had such an experience may of
course get an insight into it through intellectual reach, but will have to
struggle much harder to reach anywhere close to it. The point is not
that without subjective experience of the problem creative research is
impossible; the idea rather is that the research is likely to gain in quality
if the research problem is born out of an inner experience, or at least out

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1982] IDENTIFICATION AND FORMULATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEM 665

of one's genuine intellectual involvement in it.

Having examined the sources, it will be pertinent to note some guiding
considerations in the choice of a research problem. The first such consi-
deration which follows from the above is that a research problem should
be identified preferably out of one's inner experience which one is able to
suffer at intellectual plane.
Another important consideration is that the research problem selected
should be empirical. In fact, scientific research by its very definition
presupposes choice of an empirical problem, and there being much scope
for empirical research on social phenomena there is also a great need
for it. Such a need is even greater in the realm of legal studies be-
cause legal research has been dominated by interpretative studies. There
are hardly any empirical studies of legal phenomena in India, and
whatever few studies there are, these have been made mostly by foreign
scholars. The Indian law scholars, with a few notable exceptions, have
largely been not only indifferent but even hostile to the idea of empirical
research. In view of this the importance of selecting an empirical
problem for research cannot be exphasised enough.
Yet another consideration to be kept in mind while selecting a research
problem is that of its theoretical potential and practical relevance. The
problem selected should be such that it has a potential to advance our
existing theoretical knowledge, or else it has at least some practical rele-
vance. It may be added that this remains a common shortcoming of much
of the existing research, more so of studies of doctoral level. On the
theoretical front, they hardly seek to link the data with any theoretical
structure by way of revising or refining it, let alone developing an altoge-
ther fresh theory. On the practical side, not much research is being
undertaken on the problems confornting the nation. It is, therefore of
utmost importance to identify such a research problem as may enable one
to make a contribution either on theoretical or practical front, preferably
on both.

Formulation of problem

It is possible to distinguish two broad approaches to problem formula-

tion-deductive and inductive. The exponents of positivist epistemology
patronise deductive approach while the advocates of ethnomethodology
prefer inductive approach. The deductive approach takes a set of proposi-
tions derived in an a priori manner through deductive reasoning from a
theoretical premise as starting point of problem formulation. These
propositions define the lines of inquiry and are tested for their validity in
terms of the systematically collected evidence. In simple words, it views
problem formulation in terms of developing a set of hypotheses which will
be tested in the inquiry. For this purpose, it insists on having a research
design, a representative sample, an idea of independent and dependent
variables, and a standard instrument.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
666 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 24 : 2 & 3

The inductive approach, on the other hand, recommends ť '

naturalistic examination of the empirical social world" for purp
problem formulation. It implies that the investigator will first ac
"close and reasonably full familiarity" with the area of life under
and will then progressively sharpen his focus as the inquiry proceed
inductive approach expects a researcher to go to the field with an
mind, having no a priori assumptions, and to develop, focus and sh
his investigation in the light of his understanding of the reality in the
so that the research problem is grounded in the empirical wor
Blumer's words, it is a flexible procedure "in which the scholar shif
one to another line of inquiry, adopts new points of observation a
study progresses, moves in new directions previously unthought o
changes his recognition of what are relevant data as he acquire
information and better understanding." Clearly, the inductive pro
of problem formulation stands in sharp contrast to the fixed and c
cribed procedure of positivist deductive procedure. This does no
that there is no direction to the inquiry; it means that the focus is orig
broad but becomes progressively specified as the inquiry goes forwa
These methodological positions notwithstanding, problem formu
signifies an attempt to specify the direction of inquiry. This involv
tasks : Framing the title, formulating research issues, and operation
the concepts.
A title is a formal shorthand statement of the problem. It is supposed
to signify the focus of inquiry. Framing a title is no easy task. Generally one
comes across two types of titles- descriptive and analytical. A descriptive title
is framed in terms of the content of study while an analytical title points out
the perspective of study. Examples of descriptive title are : "Law Colleges
and Law Students in Bihar", "Indian Supreme Court Judges : A Portrait",
"Lawyers at a District Court". What these titles indicate is the scope and
content of each study. On the other hand, analytical titles bring in sharp
focus either an issue or the perspective of the study. Examples of an
analytical title are : "Kinship in Professional Relations : A Study of North
Indian District Lawyers", "Barristers and Brahmins in India : Legal
Cultures and Social Change", "Lawyers in Government : The Most
Serviceable Instruments of Authority", "Self Service or Community
Service : A Study of Lawyers as Professionals". Clearly, all these titles
either throw up an issue or signify the perspective used in the study. Few
will dispute that an analytical title is better than a descriptive title, provi-
ded the study is designed to deal with an analytical issue or is informed
of a perspective. An analytical title is certainly more complete in that
it indicates both the content and the perspective of the study. In terms of
format such a title usually has two parts- main and subtitle - as is evident
from the analytical titles cited above. It is a different matter that in some
of them the analytical point is reflected in the main title while in others in
the subtitle. It is generally preferable to formulate the main title in terms

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1982] IDENTIFICATION AND FORMULATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEM 661

of an analytical issue or perspective.

The central task involved in problem formulation is that of framing the
terms of inquiry. The specific terms of inquiry may be formulated either
in terms of research questions or guiding hypotheses. Merton, for
instance, has underlined the importance of research questions for framing
the terms of inquiry. In particular, he mentions three types of questions :
Originating question, the question of rationale and the specifying questions.
Originating question is a statement of what one wants to know and it can
range from ascertaining facts to explain empirical uniformities or varia-
tions. The question of rationale states why the originating question is
worth asking and what will happen to other parts of knowledge or practice
as a result of answering the question. The specifying questions are concer-
ned with specifying the conditions that point toward possible answers to
the originating question in terms that satisfy the rationale.
These questions can now be illustrated with some examples. Suppose
we are interested in assessing the role of education in promoting attitudinal
modernity in developing societies. Thus our originating question is :
Whether or not education promotes individual modernity particularly in
a developing society, say in India? The question of rationale will have to
deal with the theoretical significance and policy relevance of the originat-
ing question. The specifying questions may be as follows : What is it
about education that tends to stimulate modernity? Is it level, or spread,
or structure, or curriculum, or extra-curricular programme that augments
modernity? Under what conditions education tends to enhance modernity?
These are obviously specifying questions as they seek to specify the condi-
tions which affect the role of education in modernity.
The terms of inquiry may as well be formulated in the form of hypo-
theses. A hypothesis is a hunch, a testable proposition the validity of
which remains to be determined. Framing the terms of inquiry in terms
of hypotheses presupposes some prior knowledge about the phenomenon.
Like research questions, it is possible to think of two categories of
hypotheses- master hypothesis and subsidiary hypothesis. This can again
be illustrated with examples relating to the same theme. The example of
master hypothesis on education and modernity is : The level of education
is positively related to modernity, viz., the higher the level of education
the greater the modernity. This hypothesis may also be formulated in
the form af null hypothesis as follows : There is no relationship between
level of education and modernity. Examples of subsidiary hypothesis are :
Science students tend to be more modern than arts students; hostelers are
likely to be more modern than day scholars; those who participate in
extra-curricular activities tend to be more modern than those who do not.
Operationalisation is another important task involved in problem
formulation. Operationalisation means devising empirical referents of an
abstract concept. To continue with the problem of education and moder-
nity, we have the concept of modernity here. Unless defined in precise

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
668 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE [Vol. 24 : 2 & 3

operational terms, modernity may mean different things to different p

It therefore needs to be defined in operational terms. Notionally,
be defined as a set of such attitudes as secular, rational, universali
etc . These constituents of modernity need to be given an empirical
ing. Take, for instance, the term "secular". It has several connotat
Equal regard for all religions is one meaning of secularity. Withdr
of the authority of religion from other than religious spheres is an
First we have to specify its meaning. Let us define it in terms of
regard for all religions. Having done this, certain items are to be
to tap equal regard for all religions. Instances of such items are : 4
religion is as good as my own"; ' 'world will be a better place to liv
all people adopt my religion." A positive response to these item
indicative of religious intolerance while a negative response is indi
of religious tolerance. This is how a concept is operationalised.
Now some general considerations. Specificity and clarity are the
major qualities of a sound formulation. In fact, formulation of a re
problem is a process of progressive elimination of the irreleva
specification of the relevant. A good formulation is specific in term
scope and coverage, perspective and focus, and universe and sa
Generally, there is a tendency on the part of a novice to embark o
ambitious a formulation to be manageable. Nothing can be more in
to research than this. Hence, this tendency needs to be kept in
Clarity is another desirable quality of an appropriate formulation.
having more than one meaning or dubious implications have go
carefully avoided. Vague and imprecise expressions must be shunne
An example in point is the following formulation : "Structural Effe
Marriage Legislation on Society". The word -''structural" here d
have a definite meaning. Similarly, the word "society" is too br
mean much. This formulation can more appropriately be reformul
follows : "Effects of Marriage Legislation on Social Structure of a
munity". Indeed the particular community should be specified.
These, then, are some of the guiding considerations which m
helpful in identifying and formulating a research problem.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:10:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms