a research on issues

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Problem – Examples, Types and Guide

Research Problem – Examples, Types and Guide

Table of Contents

Research Problem

Definition:

Research problem is a specific and well-defined issue or question that a researcher seeks to investigate through research. It is the starting point of any research project, as it sets the direction, scope, and purpose of the study.

Types of Research Problems

Types of Research Problems are as follows:

Descriptive problems

These problems involve describing or documenting a particular phenomenon, event, or situation. For example, a researcher might investigate the demographics of a particular population, such as their age, gender, income, and education.

Exploratory problems

These problems are designed to explore a particular topic or issue in depth, often with the goal of generating new ideas or hypotheses. For example, a researcher might explore the factors that contribute to job satisfaction among employees in a particular industry.

Explanatory Problems

These problems seek to explain why a particular phenomenon or event occurs, and they typically involve testing hypotheses or theories. For example, a researcher might investigate the relationship between exercise and mental health, with the goal of determining whether exercise has a causal effect on mental health.

Predictive Problems

These problems involve making predictions or forecasts about future events or trends. For example, a researcher might investigate the factors that predict future success in a particular field or industry.

Evaluative Problems

These problems involve assessing the effectiveness of a particular intervention, program, or policy. For example, a researcher might evaluate the impact of a new teaching method on student learning outcomes.

How to Define a Research Problem

Defining a research problem involves identifying a specific question or issue that a researcher seeks to address through a research study. Here are the steps to follow when defining a research problem:

• Identify a broad research topic : Start by identifying a broad topic that you are interested in researching. This could be based on your personal interests, observations, or gaps in the existing literature.
• Conduct a literature review : Once you have identified a broad topic, conduct a thorough literature review to identify the current state of knowledge in the field. This will help you identify gaps or inconsistencies in the existing research that can be addressed through your study.
• Refine the research question: Based on the gaps or inconsistencies identified in the literature review, refine your research question to a specific, clear, and well-defined problem statement. Your research question should be feasible, relevant, and important to the field of study.
• Develop a hypothesis: Based on the research question, develop a hypothesis that states the expected relationship between variables.
• Define the scope and limitations: Clearly define the scope and limitations of your research problem. This will help you focus your study and ensure that your research objectives are achievable.
• Get feedback: Get feedback from your advisor or colleagues to ensure that your research problem is clear, feasible, and relevant to the field of study.

Components of a Research Problem

The components of a research problem typically include the following:

• Topic : The general subject or area of interest that the research will explore.
• Research Question : A clear and specific question that the research seeks to answer or investigate.
• Objective : A statement that describes the purpose of the research, what it aims to achieve, and the expected outcomes.
• Hypothesis : An educated guess or prediction about the relationship between variables, which is tested during the research.
• Variables : The factors or elements that are being studied, measured, or manipulated in the research.
• Methodology : The overall approach and methods that will be used to conduct the research.
• Scope and Limitations : A description of the boundaries and parameters of the research, including what will be included and excluded, and any potential constraints or limitations.
• Significance: A statement that explains the potential value or impact of the research, its contribution to the field of study, and how it will add to the existing knowledge.

Research Problem Examples

Following are some Research Problem Examples:

Research Problem Examples in Psychology are as follows:

• Exploring the impact of social media on adolescent mental health.
• Investigating the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy for treating anxiety disorders.
• Studying the impact of prenatal stress on child development outcomes.
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to addiction and relapse in substance abuse treatment.
• Examining the impact of personality traits on romantic relationships.

Research Problem Examples in Sociology are as follows:

• Investigating the relationship between social support and mental health outcomes in marginalized communities.
• Studying the impact of globalization on labor markets and employment opportunities.
• Analyzing the causes and consequences of gentrification in urban neighborhoods.
• Investigating the impact of family structure on social mobility and economic outcomes.
• Examining the effects of social capital on community development and resilience.

Research Problem Examples in Economics are as follows:

• Studying the effects of trade policies on economic growth and development.
• Analyzing the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on labor markets and employment opportunities.
• Investigating the factors that contribute to economic inequality and poverty.
• Examining the impact of fiscal and monetary policies on inflation and economic stability.
• Studying the relationship between education and economic outcomes, such as income and employment.

Political Science

Research Problem Examples in Political Science are as follows:

• Analyzing the causes and consequences of political polarization and partisan behavior.
• Investigating the impact of social movements on political change and policymaking.
• Studying the role of media and communication in shaping public opinion and political discourse.
• Examining the effectiveness of electoral systems in promoting democratic governance and representation.
• Investigating the impact of international organizations and agreements on global governance and security.

Environmental Science

Research Problem Examples in Environmental Science are as follows:

• Studying the impact of air pollution on human health and well-being.
• Investigating the effects of deforestation on climate change and biodiversity loss.
• Analyzing the impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and food webs.
• Studying the relationship between urban development and ecological resilience.
• Examining the effectiveness of environmental policies and regulations in promoting sustainability and conservation.

Research Problem Examples in Education are as follows:

• Investigating the impact of teacher training and professional development on student learning outcomes.
• Studying the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in promoting student engagement and achievement.
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to achievement gaps and educational inequality.
• Examining the impact of parental involvement on student motivation and achievement.
• Studying the effectiveness of alternative educational models, such as homeschooling and online learning.

Research Problem Examples in History are as follows:

• Analyzing the social and economic factors that contributed to the rise and fall of ancient civilizations.
• Investigating the impact of colonialism on indigenous societies and cultures.
• Studying the role of religion in shaping political and social movements throughout history.
• Analyzing the impact of the Industrial Revolution on economic and social structures.
• Examining the causes and consequences of global conflicts, such as World War I and II.

Research Problem Examples in Business are as follows:

• Studying the impact of corporate social responsibility on brand reputation and consumer behavior.
• Investigating the effectiveness of leadership development programs in improving organizational performance and employee satisfaction.
• Analyzing the factors that contribute to successful entrepreneurship and small business development.
• Examining the impact of mergers and acquisitions on market competition and consumer welfare.
• Studying the effectiveness of marketing strategies and advertising campaigns in promoting brand awareness and sales.

Research Problem Example for Students

An Example of a Research Problem for Students could be:

“How does social media usage affect the academic performance of high school students?”

This research problem is specific, measurable, and relevant. It is specific because it focuses on a particular area of interest, which is the impact of social media on academic performance. It is measurable because the researcher can collect data on social media usage and academic performance to evaluate the relationship between the two variables. It is relevant because it addresses a current and important issue that affects high school students.

To conduct research on this problem, the researcher could use various methods, such as surveys, interviews, and statistical analysis of academic records. The results of the study could provide insights into the relationship between social media usage and academic performance, which could help educators and parents develop effective strategies for managing social media use among students.

Another example of a research problem for students:

“Does participation in extracurricular activities impact the academic performance of middle school students?”

This research problem is also specific, measurable, and relevant. It is specific because it focuses on a particular type of activity, extracurricular activities, and its impact on academic performance. It is measurable because the researcher can collect data on students’ participation in extracurricular activities and their academic performance to evaluate the relationship between the two variables. It is relevant because extracurricular activities are an essential part of the middle school experience, and their impact on academic performance is a topic of interest to educators and parents.

To conduct research on this problem, the researcher could use surveys, interviews, and academic records analysis. The results of the study could provide insights into the relationship between extracurricular activities and academic performance, which could help educators and parents make informed decisions about the types of activities that are most beneficial for middle school students.

Applications of Research Problem

Applications of Research Problem are as follows:

• Academic research: Research problems are used to guide academic research in various fields, including social sciences, natural sciences, humanities, and engineering. Researchers use research problems to identify gaps in knowledge, address theoretical or practical problems, and explore new areas of study.
• Business research : Research problems are used to guide business research, including market research, consumer behavior research, and organizational research. Researchers use research problems to identify business challenges, explore opportunities, and develop strategies for business growth and success.
• Healthcare research : Research problems are used to guide healthcare research, including medical research, clinical research, and health services research. Researchers use research problems to identify healthcare challenges, develop new treatments and interventions, and improve healthcare delivery and outcomes.
• Public policy research : Research problems are used to guide public policy research, including policy analysis, program evaluation, and policy development. Researchers use research problems to identify social issues, assess the effectiveness of existing policies and programs, and develop new policies and programs to address societal challenges.
• Environmental research : Research problems are used to guide environmental research, including environmental science, ecology, and environmental management. Researchers use research problems to identify environmental challenges, assess the impact of human activities on the environment, and develop sustainable solutions to protect the environment.

Purpose of Research Problems

The purpose of research problems is to identify an area of study that requires further investigation and to formulate a clear, concise and specific research question. A research problem defines the specific issue or problem that needs to be addressed and serves as the foundation for the research project.

Identifying a research problem is important because it helps to establish the direction of the research and sets the stage for the research design, methods, and analysis. It also ensures that the research is relevant and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field.

A well-formulated research problem should:

• Clearly define the specific issue or problem that needs to be investigated
• Be specific and narrow enough to be manageable in terms of time, resources, and scope
• Be relevant to the field of study and contribute to the existing body of knowledge
• Be feasible and realistic in terms of available data, resources, and research methods
• Be interesting and intellectually stimulating for the researcher and potential readers or audiences.

Characteristics of Research Problem

The characteristics of a research problem refer to the specific features that a problem must possess to qualify as a suitable research topic. Some of the key characteristics of a research problem are:

• Clarity : A research problem should be clearly defined and stated in a way that it is easily understood by the researcher and other readers. The problem should be specific, unambiguous, and easy to comprehend.
• Relevance : A research problem should be relevant to the field of study, and it should contribute to the existing body of knowledge. The problem should address a gap in knowledge, a theoretical or practical problem, or a real-world issue that requires further investigation.
• Feasibility : A research problem should be feasible in terms of the availability of data, resources, and research methods. It should be realistic and practical to conduct the study within the available time, budget, and resources.
• Novelty : A research problem should be novel or original in some way. It should represent a new or innovative perspective on an existing problem, or it should explore a new area of study or apply an existing theory to a new context.
• Importance : A research problem should be important or significant in terms of its potential impact on the field or society. It should have the potential to produce new knowledge, advance existing theories, or address a pressing societal issue.
• Manageability : A research problem should be manageable in terms of its scope and complexity. It should be specific enough to be investigated within the available time and resources, and it should be broad enough to provide meaningful results.

Advantages of Research Problem

The advantages of a well-defined research problem are as follows:

• Focus : A research problem provides a clear and focused direction for the research study. It ensures that the study stays on track and does not deviate from the research question.
• Clarity : A research problem provides clarity and specificity to the research question. It ensures that the research is not too broad or too narrow and that the research objectives are clearly defined.
• Relevance : A research problem ensures that the research study is relevant to the field of study and contributes to the existing body of knowledge. It addresses gaps in knowledge, theoretical or practical problems, or real-world issues that require further investigation.
• Feasibility : A research problem ensures that the research study is feasible in terms of the availability of data, resources, and research methods. It ensures that the research is realistic and practical to conduct within the available time, budget, and resources.
• Novelty : A research problem ensures that the research study is original and innovative. It represents a new or unique perspective on an existing problem, explores a new area of study, or applies an existing theory to a new context.
• Importance : A research problem ensures that the research study is important and significant in terms of its potential impact on the field or society. It has the potential to produce new knowledge, advance existing theories, or address a pressing societal issue.
• Rigor : A research problem ensures that the research study is rigorous and follows established research methods and practices. It ensures that the research is conducted in a systematic, objective, and unbiased manner.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

References in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Dissertation vs Thesis – Key Differences

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories
• Artificial Intelligence
• Market Research
• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO

Academic Experience

How to identify and resolve research problems

Updated July 12, 2023

In this article, we’re going to take you through one of the most pertinent parts of conducting research: a research problem (also known as a research problem statement).

When trying to formulate a good research statement, and understand how to solve it for complex projects, it can be difficult to know where to start.

Not only are there multiple perspectives (from stakeholders to project marketers who want answers), you have to consider the particular context of the research topic: is it timely, is it relevant and most importantly of all, is it valuable?

In other words: are you looking at a research worthy problem?

The fact is, a well-defined, precise, and goal-centric research problem will keep your researchers, stakeholders, and business-focused and your results actionable.

And when it works well, it's a powerful tool to identify practical solutions that can drive change and secure buy-in from your workforce.

Free eBook: The ultimate guide to market research

What is a research problem?

In social research methodology and behavioral sciences , a research problem establishes the direction of research, often relating to a specific topic or opportunity for discussion.

For example: climate change and sustainability, analyzing moral dilemmas or wage disparity amongst classes could all be areas that the research problem focuses on.

As well as outlining the topic and/or opportunity, a research problem will explain:

• why the area/issue needs to be addressed,
• why the area/issue is of importance,
• the parameters of the research study
• the research objective
• the reporting framework for the results and
• what the overall benefit of doing so will provide (whether to society as a whole or other researchers and projects).

Having identified the main topic or opportunity for discussion, you can then narrow it down into one or several specific questions that can be scrutinized and answered through the research process.

What are research questions?

Generating research questions underpinning your study usually starts with problems that require further research and understanding while fulfilling the objectives of the study.

A good problem statement begins by asking deeper questions to gain insights about a specific topic.

For example, using the problems above, our questions could be:

"How will climate change policies influence sustainability standards across specific geographies?"

"What measures can be taken to address wage disparity without increasing inflation?"

Developing a research worthy problem is the first step - and one of the most important - in any kind of research.

It’s also a task that will come up again and again because any business research process is cyclical. New questions arise as you iterate and progress through discovering, refining, and improving your products and processes. A research question can also be referred to as a "problem statement".

Note: good research supports multiple perspectives through empirical data. It’s focused on key concepts rather than a broad area, providing readily actionable insight and areas for further research.

Research question or research problem?

As we've highlighted, the terms “research question” and “research problem” are often used interchangeably, becoming a vague or broad proposition for many.

The term "problem statement" is far more representative, but finds little use among academics.

Instead, some researchers think in terms of a single research problem and several research questions that arise from it.

As mentioned above, the questions are lines of inquiry to explore in trying to solve the overarching research problem.

Ultimately, this provides a more meaningful understanding of a topic area.

It may be useful to think of questions and problems as coming out of your business data – that’s the O-data (otherwise known as operational data) like sales figures and website metrics.

What's an example of a research problem?

Your overall research problem could be: "How do we improve sales across EMEA and reduce lost deals?"

This research problem then has a subset of questions, such as:

"Why do sales peak at certain times of the day?"

"Why are customers abandoning their online carts at the point of sale?"

As well as helping you to solve business problems, research problems (and associated questions) help you to think critically about topics and/or issues (business or otherwise). You can also use your old research to aid future research -- a good example is laying the foundation for comparative trend reports or a complex research project.

(Also, if you want to see the bigger picture when it comes to research problems, why not check out our ultimate guide to market research? In it you'll find out: what effective market research looks like, the use cases for market research, carrying out a research study, and how to examine and action research findings).

The research process: why are research problems important?

A research problem has two essential roles in setting your research project on a course for success.

1. They set the scope

The research problem defines what problem or opportunity you’re looking at and what your research goals are. It stops you from getting side-tracked or allowing the scope of research to creep off-course .

Without a strong research problem or problem statement, your team could end up spending resources unnecessarily, or coming up with results that aren’t actionable - or worse, harmful to your business - because the field of study is too broad.

2. They tie your work to business goals and actions

To formulate a research problem in terms of business decisions means you always have clarity on what’s needed to make those decisions. You can show the effects of what you’ve studied using real outcomes.

Then, by focusing your research problem statement on a series of questions tied to business objectives, you can reduce the risk of the research being unactionable or inaccurate.

It's also worth examining research or other scholarly literature (you’ll find plenty of similar, pertinent research online) to see how others have explored specific topics and noting implications that could have for your research.

Four steps to defining your research problem

Image credit: http://myfreeschooltanzania.blogspot.com/2014/11/defining-research-problem.html

1. Observe and identify

Businesses today have so much data that it can be difficult to know which problems to address first. Researchers also have business stakeholders who come to them with problems they would like to have explored. A researcher’s job is to sift through these inputs and discover exactly what higher-level trends and key concepts are worth investing in.

This often means asking questions and doing some initial investigation to decide which avenues to pursue. This could mean gathering interdisciplinary perspectives identifying additional expertise and contextual information.

Sometimes, a small-scale preliminary study might be worth doing to help get a more comprehensive understanding of the business context and needs, and to make sure your research problem addresses the most critical questions.

This could take the form of qualitative research using a few in-depth interviews , an environmental scan, or reviewing relevant literature.

The sales manager of a sportswear company has a problem: sales of trail running shoes are down year-on-year and she isn’t sure why. She approaches the company’s research team for input and they begin asking questions within the company and reviewing their knowledge of the wider market.

2. Review the key factors involved

As a marketing researcher, you must work closely with your team of researchers to define and test the influencing factors and the wider context involved in your study. These might include demographic and economic trends or the business environment affecting the question at hand. This is referred to as a relational research problem.

To do this, you have to identify the factors that will affect the research and begin formulating different methods to control them.

You also need to consider the relationships between factors and the degree of control you have over them. For example, you may be able to control the loading speed of your website but you can’t control the fluctuations of the stock market.

Doing this will help you determine whether the findings of your project will produce enough information to be worth the cost.

You need to determine:

• which factors affect the solution to the research proposal.
• which ones can be controlled and used for the purposes of the company, and to what extent.
• the functional relationships between the factors.
• which ones are critical to the solution of the research study.

The research team at the running shoe company is hard at work. They explore the factors involved and the context of why YoY sales are down for trail shoes, including things like what the company’s competitors are doing, what the weather has been like – affecting outdoor exercise – and the relative spend on marketing for the brand from year to year.

The final factor is within the company’s control, although the first two are not. They check the figures and determine marketing spend has a significant impact on the company.

3. Prioritize

Once you and your research team have a few observations, prioritize them based on their business impact and importance. It may be that you can answer more than one question with a single study, but don’t do it at the risk of losing focus on your overarching research problem.

Questions to ask:

• Who? Who are the people with the problem? Are they end-users, stakeholders, teams within your business? Have you validated the information to see what the scale of the problem is?
• What? What is its nature and what is the supporting evidence?
• Why? What is the business case for solving the problem? How will it help?
• Where? How does the problem manifest and where is it observed?

To help you understand all dimensions, you might want to consider focus groups or preliminary interviews with external (including consumers and existing customers) and internal (salespeople, managers, and other stakeholders) parties to provide what is sometimes much-needed insight into a particular set of questions or problems.

After observing and investigating, the running shoe researchers come up with a few candidate questions, including:

• What is the relationship between US average temperatures and sales of our products year on year?
• At present, how does our customer base rank Competitor X and Competitor Y’s trail running shoe compared to our brand?
• What is the relationship between marketing spend and trail shoe product sales over the last 12 months?

They opt for the final question, because the variables involved are fully within the company’s control, and based on their initial research and stakeholder input, seem the most likely cause of the dive in sales. The research question is specific enough to keep the work on course towards an actionable result, but it allows for a few different avenues to be explored, such as the different budget allocations of offline and online marketing and the kinds of messaging used.

Get feedback from the key teams within your business to make sure everyone is aligned and has the same understanding of the research problem and questions, and the actions you hope to take based on the results. Now is also a good time to demonstrate the ROI of your research and lay out its potential benefits to your stakeholders.

Different groups may have different goals and perspectives on the issue. This step is vital for getting the necessary buy-in and pushing the project forward.

The running shoe company researchers now have everything they need to begin. They call a meeting with the sales manager and consult with the product team, marketing team, and C-suite to make sure everyone is aligned and has bought into the direction of the research topic. They identify and agree that the likely course of action will be a rethink of how marketing resources are allocated, and potentially testing out some new channels and messaging strategies .

Can you explore a broad area and is it practical to do so?

A broader research problem or report can be a great way to bring attention to prevalent issues, societal or otherwise, but are often undertaken by those with the resources to do so.

Take a typical government cybersecurity breach survey, for example. Most of these reports raise awareness of cybercrime, from the day-to-day threats businesses face to what security measures some organizations are taking. What these reports don't do, however, is provide actionable advice - mostly because every organization is different.

The point here is that while some researchers will explore a very complex issue in detail, others will provide only a snapshot to maintain interest and encourage further investigation. The "value" of the data is wholly determined by the recipients of it - and what information you choose to include.

To summarize, it can be practical to undertake a broader research problem, certainly, but it may not be possible to cover everything or provide the detail your audience needs. Likewise, a more systematic investigation of an issue or topic will be more valuable, but you may also find that you cover far less ground.

It's important to think about your research objectives and expected findings before going ahead.

Ensuring your research project is a success

A complex research project can be made significantly easier with clear research objectives, a descriptive research problem, and a central focus. All of which we've outlined in this article.

If you have previous research, even better. Use it as a benchmark

Remember: what separates a good research paper from an average one is actually very simple: valuable, empirical data that explores a prevalent societal or business issue and provides actionable insights.

And we can help.

Sophisticated research made simple with Qualtrics

Trusted by the world's best brands, our platform enables researchers from academic to corporate to tackle the hardest challenges and deliver the results that matter.

Our CoreXM platform supports the methods that define superior research and delivers insights in real-time. It's easy to use (thanks to drag-and-drop functionality) and requires no coding, meaning you'll be capturing data and gleaning insights in no time.

It also excels in flexibility; you can track consumer behavior across segments , benchmark your company versus competitors , carry out complex academic research, and do much more, all from one system.

It's one platform with endless applications, so no matter your research problem, we've got the tools to help you solve it. And if you don't have a team of research experts in-house, our market research team has the practical knowledge and tools to help design the surveys and find the respondents you need.

Of course, you may want to know where to begin with your own market research . If you're struggling, make sure to download our ultimate guide using the link below.

It's got everything you need and there’s always information in our research methods knowledge base.

Scott Smith

Scott Smith, Ph.D. is a contributor to the Qualtrics blog.

Related Articles

April 1, 2023

How to write great survey questions (with examples)

February 8, 2023

Smoothing the transition from school to work with work-based learning

December 6, 2022

How customer experience helps bring Open Universities Australia’s brand promise to life

August 18, 2022

School safety, learning gaps top of mind for parents this back-to-school season

August 9, 2022

3 things that will improve your teachers’ school experience

August 2, 2022

Why a sense of belonging at school matters for K-12 students

July 14, 2022

Improve the student experience with simplified course evaluations

March 17, 2022

Understanding what’s important to college students

Stay up to date with the latest xm thought leadership, tips and news., request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

• How it works

Research Problem – Definition, Steps & Tips

Published by Jamie Walker at August 12th, 2021 , Revised On October 3, 2023

Once you have chosen a research topic, the next stage is to explain the research problem: the detailed issue, ambiguity of the research, gap analysis, or gaps in knowledge and findings that you will discuss.

Here, in this article, we explore a research problem in a dissertation or an essay with some research problem examples to help you better understand how and when you should write a research problem.

“A research problem is a specific statement relating to an area of concern and is contingent on the type of research. Some research studies focus on theoretical and practical problems, while some focus on only one.”

The problem statement in the dissertation, essay, research paper, and other academic papers should be clearly stated and intended to expand information, knowledge, and contribution to change.

This article will assist in identifying and elaborating a research problem if you are unsure how to define your research problem. The most notable challenge in the research process is to formulate and identify a research problem. Formulating a problem statement and research questions while finalizing the research proposal or introduction for your dissertation or thesis is necessary.

Why is Research Problem Critical?

An interesting research topic is only the first step. The real challenge of the research process is to develop a well-rounded research problem.

A well-formulated research problem helps understand the research procedure; without it, your research will appear unforeseeable and awkward.

Research is a procedure based on a sequence and a research problem aids in following and completing the research in a sequence. Repetition of existing literature is something that should be avoided in research.

Therefore research problem in a dissertation or an essay needs to be well thought out and presented with a clear purpose. Hence, your research work contributes more value to existing knowledge. You need to be well aware of the problem so you can present logical solutions.

Formulating a research problem is the first step of conducting research, whether you are writing an essay, research paper,   dissertation , or  research proposal .

Looking for dissertation help?

Researchprospect to the rescue then.

We have expert writers on our team who are skilled at helping students with dissertations across a variety of STEM disciplines. Guaranteeing 100% satisfaction!

Step 1: Identifying Problem Area – What is Research Problem

The most significant step in any research is to look for  unexplored areas, topics, and controversies . You aim to find gaps that your work will fill. Here are some research problem examples for you to better understand the concept.

Practical Research Problems

To conduct practical research, you will need practical research problems that are typically identified by analysing reports, previous research studies, and interactions with the experienced personals of pertinent disciplines. You might search for:

• Problems with performance or competence in an organization
• Institutional practices that could be enhanced
• Practitioners of relevant fields and their areas of concern
• Problems confronted by specific groups of people within your area of study

If your research work relates to an internship or a job, then it will be critical for you to identify a research problem that addresses certain issues faced by the firm the job or internship pertains to.

Examples of Practical Research Problems

Decreased voter participation in county A, as compared to the rest of the country.

The high employee turnover rate of department X of company Y influenced efficiency and team performance.

A charity institution, Y, suffers a lack of funding resulting in budget cuts for its programmes.

Theoretical Research Problems

Theoretical research relates to predicting, explaining, and understanding various phenomena. It also expands and challenges existing information and knowledge.

Identification of a research problem in theoretical research is achieved by analysing theories and fresh research literature relating to a broad area of research. This practice helps to find gaps in the research done by others and endorse the argument of your topic.

Here are some questions that you should bear in mind.

• A case or framework that has not been deeply analysed
• An ambiguity between more than one viewpoints
• An unstudied condition or relationships
• A problematic issue that needs to be addressed

Theoretical issues often contain practical implications, but immediate issues are often not resolved by these results. If that is the case, you might want to adopt a different research approach  to achieve the desired outcomes.

Examples of Theoretical Research Problems

Long-term Vitamin D deficiency affects cardiac patients are not well researched.

The relationship between races, sex, and income imbalances needs to be studied with reference to the economy of a specific country or region.

The disagreement among historians of Scottish nationalism regarding the contributions of Imperial Britain in the creation of the national identity for Scotland.

Hire an Expert Writer

Proposal and dissertation orders completed by our expert writers are

• Formally drafted in academic style
• Plagiarism free
• 100% Confidential
• Never Resold
• Include unlimited free revisions
• Completed to match exact client requirements

Step 2: Understanding the Research Problem

The researcher further investigates the selected area of research to find knowledge and information relating to the research problem to address the findings in the research.

Background and Rationale

• Population influenced by the problem?
• Is it a persistent problem, or is it recently revealed?
• Research that has already been conducted on this problem?
• Any proposed solution to the problem?
• Recent arguments concerning the problem, what are the gaps in the problem?

How to Write a First Class Dissertation Proposal or Research Proposal

Particularity and Suitability

• What specific place, time, and/or people will be focused on?
• Any aspects of research that you may not be able to deal with?
• What will be the concerns if the problem remains unresolved?
• What are the benefices of the problem resolution (e.g. future researcher or organisation’s management)?

Example of a Specific Research Problem

A non-profit institution X has been examined on their existing support base retention, but the existing research does not incorporate an understanding of how to effectively target new donors. To continue their work, the institution needs more research and find strategies for effective fundraising.

Once the problem is narrowed down, the next stage is to propose a problem statement and hypothesis or research questions.

If you are unsure about what a research problem is and how to define the research problem, then you might want to take advantage of our dissertation proposal writing service. You may also want to take a look at our essay writing service if you need help with identifying a research problem for your essay.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is research problem with example.

A research problem is a specific challenge that requires investigation. Example: “What is the impact of social media on mental health among adolescents?” This problem drives research to analyse the relationship between social media use and mental well-being in young people.

How many types of research problems do we have?

• Descriptive: Describing phenomena as they exist.
• Explanatory: Understanding causes and effects.
• Exploratory: Investigating little-understood phenomena.
• Predictive: Forecasting future outcomes.
• Prescriptive: Recommending actions.
• Normative: Describing what ought to be.

What are the principles of the research problem?

• Relevance: Addresses a significant issue.
• Re searchability: Amenable to empirical investigation.
• Clarity: Clearly defined without ambiguity.
• Specificity: Narrowly framed, avoiding vagueness.
• Feasibility: Realistic to conduct with available resources.
• Novelty: Offers new insights or challenges existing knowledge.
• Ethical considerations: Respect rights, dignity, and safety.

Why is research problem important?

A research problem is crucial because it identifies knowledge gaps, directs the inquiry’s focus, and forms the foundation for generating hypotheses or questions. It drives the methodology and determination of study relevance, ensuring that research contributes meaningfully to academic discourse and potentially addresses real-world challenges.

How do you write a research problem?

To write a research problem, identify a knowledge gap or an unresolved issue in your field. Start with a broad topic, then narrow it down. Clearly articulate the problem in a concise statement, ensuring it’s researchable, significant, and relevant. Ground it in the existing literature to highlight its importance and context.

How can we solve research problem?

To solve a research problem, start by conducting a thorough literature review. Formulate hypotheses or research questions. Choose an appropriate research methodology. Collect and analyse data systematically. Interpret findings in the context of existing knowledge. Ensure validity and reliability, and discuss implications, limitations, and potential future research directions.

You May Also Like

This article is a step-by-step guide to how to write statement of a problem in research. The research problem will be half-solved by defining it correctly.

Find how to write research questions with the mentioned steps required for a perfect research question. Choose an interesting topic and begin your research.

Make sure that your selected topic is intriguing, manageable, and relevant. Here are some guidelines to help understand how to find a good dissertation topic.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 1. Choosing a Research Problem
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

In the social and behavioral sciences, the subject of analysis is most often framed as a problem that must be researched in order to obtain a greater understanding, formulate a set of solutions or recommended courses of action, and/or develop a better approach to practice. The research problem, therefore, is the main organizing principle guiding the analysis of your research. The problem under investigation establishes an occasion for writing and a focus that governs what you want to say. It represents the core subject matter of scholarly communication and the means by which scholars arrive at other topics of conversation and the discovery of new knowledge and understanding.

Alvesson, Mats and Jörgen Sandberg. Constructing Research Questions: Doing Interesting Research . London: Sage, 2013; Jacobs, Ronald L. “Developing a Dissertation Research Problem: A Guide for Doctoral Students in Human Resource Development and Adult Education.” New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 25 (Summer 2013): 103-117; Chapter 1: Research and the Research Problem. Nicholas Walliman . Your Research Project: Designing and Planning Your Work . 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2011.

Choosing a Research Problem / How to Begin

Do not assume that identifying a research problem to investigate will be a quick and easy task! You should be thinking about it during the beginning of the course. There are generally three ways you are asked to write about a research problem : 1) your professor provides you with a general topic from which you study a particular aspect; 2) your professor provides you with a list of possible topics to study and you choose a topic from that list; or, 3) your professor leaves it up to you to choose a topic and you only have to obtain permission to write about it before beginning your investigation. Here are some strategies for getting started for each scenario.

I.  How To Begin:  You are given the topic to write about

Step 1 : Identify concepts and terms that make up the topic statement . For example, your professor wants the class to focus on the following research problem: “Is the European Union a credible security actor with the capacity to contribute to confronting global terrorism?" The main concepts in this problem are: European Union, security, global terrorism, credibility [ hint : focus on identifying proper nouns, nouns or noun phrases, and action verbs in the assignment description]. Step 2 : Review related literature to help refine how you will approach examining the topic and finding a way to analyze it . You can begin by doing any or all of the following: reading through background information from materials listed in your course syllabus; searching the USC Libraries Catalog to find a recent book on the topic and, if appropriate, more specialized works about the topic; conducting a preliminary review of the research literature using multidisciplinary databases such as ProQuest or subject-specific databases from the " By Subject Area " drop down menu located above the list of databases.

Choose the advanced search option in the database and enter into each search box the main concept terms you developed in Step 1. Also consider using their synonyms to retrieve additional relevant records. This will help you refine and frame the scope of the research problem. You will likely need to do this several times before you can finalize how to approach writing about the topic. NOTE: Always review the references from your most relevant research results cited by the authors in footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography to locate related research on your topic. This is a good strategy for identifying important prior research about the topic because titles that are repeatedly cited indicate their significance in laying a foundation for understanding the problem. However, if you’re having trouble at this point locating relevant research literature, ask a librarian for help!

ANOTHER NOTE:   If you find an article from a database that's particularly helpful, paste it into Google Scholar , placing the title of the article in quotes. If the article record appears, look for a "cited by" reference followed by a number [e.g., C ited by 37] just below the record. This link indicates how many times other scholars have subsequently cited that article in their own research since it was first published. This is an effective strategy for identifying more current, related research on your topic. Finding additional cited by references from your original list of cited by references helps you navigate through the literature and, by so doing, understand the evolution of thought around a particular research problem. Step 3 : Since social science research papers are generally designed to encourage you to develop your own ideas and arguments, look for sources that can help broaden, modify, or strengthen your initial thoughts and arguments. For example, if you decide to argue that the European Union is inadequately prepared to take on responsibilities for broader global security because of the debt crisis in many EU countries, then focus on identifying sources that support as well as refute this position. From the advanced search option in ProQuest , a sample search would use "European Union" in one search box, "global security" in the second search box, and adding a third search box to include "debt crisis."

There are least four appropriate roles your related literature plays in helping you formulate how to begin your analysis :

• Sources of criticism -- frequently, you'll find yourself reading materials that are relevant to your chosen topic, but you disagree with the author's position. Therefore, one way that you can use a source is to describe the counter-argument, provide evidence from your own review of the literature as to why the prevailing argument is unsatisfactory, and to discuss how your approach is more appropriate based upon your interpretation of the evidence.
• Sources of new ideas -- while a general goal in writing college research papers in the social sciences is to examine a research problem with some basic idea of what position you'd like to take and on what basis you'd like to defend your position, it is certainly acceptable [and often encouraged] to read the literature and extend, modify, and refine your own position in light of the ideas proposed by others. Just make sure that you cite the sources !
• Sources for historical context -- another role your related literature plays in formulating how to begin your analysis is to place issues and events in proper historical context. This can help to demonstrate familiarity with developments in relevant scholarship about your topic, provide a means of comparing historical versus contemporary issues and events, and identifying key people, places, and events that had an important role related to the research problem. Given its archival journal coverage, a good multidisciplnary database to use in this case is JSTOR .
• Sources of interdisciplinary insight -- an advantage of using databases like ProQuest to begin exploring your topic is that it covers publications from a variety of different disciplines. Another way to formulate how to study the topic is to look at it from different disciplinary perspectives. If the topic concerns immigration reform, for example, ask yourself, how do studies from sociological journals found by searching ProQuest vary in their analysis from those in political science journals. A goal in reviewing related literature is to provide a means of approaching a topic from multiple perspectives rather than the perspective offered from just one discipline.

NOTE: Remember to keep careful notes at every stage or utilize a citation management system like EndNotes or RefWorks . You may think you'll remember what you have searched and where you found things, but it’s easy to forget or get confused. Most databases have a search history feature that allows you to go back and see what searches you conducted previously as long as you haven't closed your session. If you start over, that history could be deleted.

Step 4 : Assuming you have done an effective job of synthesizing and thinking about the results of your initial search for related literature, you're ready to prepare a detailed outline for your paper that lays the foundation for a more in-depth and focused review of relevant research literature [after consulting with a librarian, if needed!]. How will you know you haven't done an effective job of synthesizing and thinking about the results of our initial search for related literature? A good indication is that you start composing the outline and gaps appear in how you want to approach the study. This indicates the need to gather further background information and analysis about the research problem.

II.  How To Begin:  You are provided a list of possible topics to choose from Step 1 : I know what you’re thinking--which topic on this list will be the easiest to find the most information on? An effective instructor would never include a topic that is so obscure or complex that no research is available to examine and from which to design an effective study. Therefore, don't approach a list of possible topics to study from the perspective of trying to identify the path of least resistance; choose a topic that you find interesting in some way, that is controversial and that you have a strong opinion about, that has some personal meaning for you, or relates to your major or a minor. You're going to be working on the topic for quite some time, so choose one that you find interesting and engaging or that motivates you to take a position. Embrace the opportunity to learn something new! Once you’ve settled on a topic of interest from the list provided by your professor, follow Steps 1 - 4 listed above to further develop it into a research paper.

NOTE: It’s ok to review related literature to help refine how you will approach analyzing a topic, and then discover that the topic isn’t all that interesting to you. In that case, choose a different topic from the list. Just don’t wait too long to make a switch and, of course, be sure to inform your professor that you are changing your topic.

III.  How To Begin:  Your professor leaves it up to you to choose a topic

Step 1 : Under this scenario, the key process is turning an idea or general thought into a topic that can be configured into a research problem. When given an assignment where you choose the topic, don't begin by thinking about what to write about, but rather, ask yourself the question, "What do I want to understand or learn about?" Treat an open-ended research assignment as an opportunity to gain new knowledge about something that's important or exciting to you in the context of the overall subject of the course.

Step 2 : If you lack ideas, or wish to gain focus, try any or all of the following strategies:

• Review your course readings, particularly the suggested readings, for topic ideas. Don't just review what you've already read, but jump ahead in the syllabus to readings that have not been covered yet.
• Search the USC Libraries Catalog for a recently published book and, if appropriate, more specialized works related to the discipline area of the course [e.g., for the course SOCI 335: Society and Population, search for books on "population and society" or "population and social impact"]. Reviewing the contents of a book about your area of interest can give you insight into what conversations scholars are having about the topic and, thus, how you might want to contribute your own ideas to these conversations through the research paper you write for the class.
• Browse through some current scholarly [a.k.a., academic, peer reviewed] journals in your subject discipline. Even if most of the articles are not relevant, you can skim through the contents quickly. You only need one to be the spark that begins the process of wanting to learn more about a topic. Consult with a librarian and/or your professor about what constitutes the core journals within the subject area of the writing assignment.
• Think about essays you have written for other courses you have taken or academic lectures and programs you have attended outside of class. Thinking back, ask yourself why did you want to take this class or attend this event? What interested you the most? What would you like to know more about? Place this question in the context of the current course assignment. Note that this strategy also applies to anything you've watched on TV or has been shared on social media.
• Search online news media sources, such as CNN , the Los Angeles Times , Huffington Post , MSNBC , Fox News , or Newsweek , to see if your idea has been covered by the media. Use this coverage to refine your idea into something that you'd like to investigate further, but in a more deliberate, scholarly way in relation to a particular problem that needs to be researched.

Step 3 : To build upon your initial idea, use the suggestions under this tab to help narrow , broaden , or increase the timeliness of your idea so you can write it out as a research problem.

Once you are comfortable with having turned your idea into a research problem, follow Steps 1 - 4 listed in Part I above to further develop it into an outline for a research paper.

Alderman, Jim. "Choosing a Research Topic." Beginning Library and Information Systems Strategies. Paper 17. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida Digital Commons, 2014; Alvesson, Mats and Jörgen Sandberg. Constructing Research Questions: Doing Interesting Research . London: Sage, 2013; Chapter 2: Choosing a Research Topic. Adrian R. Eley. Becoming a Successful Early Career Researcher . New York: Routledge, 2012; Answering the Question. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra; Brainstorming. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Brainstorming. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Chapter 1: Research and the Research Problem. Nicholas Walliman . Your Research Project: Designing and Planning Your Work . 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2011; Choosing a Topic. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University;  Mullaney, Thomas S. and Christopher Rea. Where Research Begins: Choosing a Research Project That Matters to You (and the World) . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2022; Coming Up With Your Topic. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; How To Write a Thesis Statement. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Identify Your Question. Start Your Research. University Library, University of California, Santa Cruz; The Process of Writing a Research Paper. Department of History. Trent University; Trochim, William M.K. Problem Formulation. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006.

Resources for Identifying a Topic

Resources for Identifying a Research Problem

If you are having difficulty identifying a topic to study or need basic background information, the following web resources and databases can be useful:

• CQ Researcher -- a collection of single-themed public policy reports that provide an overview of an issue. Each report includes background information, an assessment of the current policy situation, statistical tables and maps, pro/con statements from representatives of opposing positions, and a bibliography of key sources.
• New York Times Topics -- each topic page collects news articles, reference and archival information, photos, graphics, audio and video files. Content is available without charge on articles going back to 1981.
• Opposing Viewpoints In Context -- an online resource covering a wide range of social issues from a variety of perspectives. The database contains a media-rich collection of materials, including pro/con viewpoint essays, topic overviews, primary source materials, biographies of social activists and reformers, journal articles, statistical tables, charts and graphs, images, videos, and podcasts.
• Policy Commons -- platform for objective, fact-based research from the world’s leading policy experts, nonpartisan think tanks, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The database provides advanced searching across millions of pages of books, articles, working papers, reports, policy briefs, data sets, tables, charts, media, case studies, and statistical publications, including archived reports from more than 200 defunct think tanks. Coverage is international in scope.

Descriptions of resources are adapted or quoted from vendor websites.

Writing Tip

Not Finding Anything on Your Topic? Ask a Librarian!

Don't assume or jump to the conclusion that your topic is too narrowly defined or obscure just because your initial search has failed to identify relevant research. Librarians are experts in locating and critically assessing information and how it is organized. This knowledge will help you develop strategies for analyzing existing knowledge in new ways. Therefore, always consult with a librarian before you consider giving up on finding information about the topic you want to investigate. If there isn't a lot of information about your topic, a librarian can help you identify a closely related topic that you can study. Use the Ask-A-Librarian link above to identify a librarian in your subject area.

Another Writing Tip

Don't be a Martyr!

In thinking about what to study, don't adopt the mindset of pursuing an esoteric or overly complicated topic just to impress your professor but that, in reality, does not have any real interest to you. Choose a topic that is challenging but that has at least some interest to you or that you care about. Obviously, this is easier for courses within your major, but even for those nasty prerequisite classes that you must take in order to graduate [and that provide an additional tuition revenue for the university], try to apply issues associated with your major to the general topic given to you. For example, if you are an international relations major taking a GE philosophy class where the assignment asks you to apply the question of "what is truth" to some aspect of life, you could choose to study how government leaders attempt to shape truth through the use of nationalistic propaganda.

Still Another Writing Tip

A Research Problem is Not a Thesis Statement

A thesis statement and a research problem are two different parts of the introduction section of your paper. The thesis statement succinctly describes in one or two sentences, usually in the last paragraph of the introduction, what position you have reached about a topic. It includes an assertion that requires evidence and support along with your opinion or argument about what you are researching. There are three general types of thesis statements: analytical statements that break down and evaluate the topic; argumentative statements that make a claim about the topic and defend that claim; and, expository statements that present facts and research about the topic. Each are intended to set forth a claim that you will seek to validate through the research you describe in your paper.

Before the thesis statement, your introduction must include a description of a problem that describes either a key area of concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling issue that exists . The research problem describes something that can be empirically verified and measured; it is often followed by a set of questions that underpin how you plan to approach investigating that problem. In short, the thesis statement states your opinion or argument about the research problem and summarizes how you plan to address it.

Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Write a Strong Thesis Statement! The Writing Center, University of Evansville; Thesis Statements. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tutorial #26: Thesis Statements and Topic Sentences. Writing Center, College of San Mateo; Creswell,  John W. and J. David Creswell. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches . 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2017.

• << Previous: Glossary of Research Terms
• Next: Reading Research Effectively >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

TODAY'S HOURS:

Research Topic Ideas

• Picking a Topic
• Area & Interdisciplinary Studies
• Behavioral & Social Sciences
• Business, Economics, & Management

Not Sure Which Topic to Choose?

Controversial issues and current events, flint water crisis.

• Education & Social Work
• Health Sciences
• Natural and Physical Sciences

Look at the "Picking a Topic" tab on this guide for help brainstorming your topic. Also, our Research Process guide can help you throughout your research process.

• Research Process by Liz Svoboda Last Updated May 29, 2024 9344 views this year
• Affirmative Action
• Affordable Care Act
• Alternative medicine
• America's global influence
• Artificial intelligence
• Assisted suicide
• Bilingual education
• Black Lives Matter
• Border security
• Capital punishment
• Charter schools
• Childhood obesity
• Civil rights
• Climate change
• Concussions in football
• COVID restrictions
• Cryptocurrency
• Cyber bullying
• Cybersecurity
• Drug legalization
• Early voting
• Eating disorders
• Equal Rights Amendment
• Executive order
• Factory farming
• Foreign aid
• Freedom of speech
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Genetic engineering
• Gerrymandering
• Green New Deal
• Hate speech
• Health insurance
• Human trafficking
• Immigration
• Israel-Palestine relations
• Judicial activism
• Labor unions
• Land acknowledgments
• #MeToo movement
• Minimum wage
• Misinformation
• Net neutrality
• Nuclear energy
• Offshore drilling
• Online anonymity
• Organic food
• Outsourcing
• Police reform
• Political activism
• Prescription drug addiction
• Racial profiling
• Reparations
• Russian hacking
• Sanctuary city
• Screen addiction
• Self-driving cars
• Sex education
• Smart speakers
• Social Security reform
• Standardized testing
• Stimulus packages
• Supreme Court confirmation
• Syrian civil war
• Title IX enforcement
• Trade tariffs
• Transgender rights
• Ukraine and Russia
• Urban agriculture
• Vaccination mandates
• Violence in the media
• Voter ID laws
• Voting fraud and security
• White nationalism
• Women's rights
• Zero tolerance policies

Related suggested databases

Covers contemporary social issues with pro & con and background information. Also allows searching of the collection Global Issues.

Covers contemporary social issues, from Offshore Drilling to Climate Change, Health Care to Immigration. Helps students research, analyze and organize a broad variety of data for conducting research, completing writing assignments, preparing for debates, creating presentations, and more. This resource helps students explore issues from all perspectives, and includes: pro/con viewpoint essays, topic overviews, primary source documents, biographies of social activists and reformers, court-case overviews, periodical articles, statistical tables, charts and graphs, images and a link to Google Image Search, podcasts (including weekly presidential addresses and premier NPR programs), and a national and state curriculum standards search correlated to the content that allows educators to quickly identify material by grade and discipline. Keyword(s): United States

In-depth, unbiased coverage of health, social trends, criminal justice, international affairs, education, the environment, technology, and the economy.

1923-present. Each single-themed, 12,000-word report is researched and written by a seasoned journalist, and contains an introductory overview; background and chronology on the topic; an assessment of the current situation; tables and maps; pro & con statements from representatives of opposing positions; and bibliographies of key sources.

Balanced, accurate discussions of over 250 controversial topics in the news along with chronologies, illustrations, maps, tables, sidebars, contact info, and bibliographies, including primary source documents and news editorials.

Covers 1995-present. A Read Aloud button is available for text-to-speech for much of the content.

Series of short books that offer a balanced and authoritative treatment of current events and countries of the world.

What Everyone Needs to Know has short overviews designed to offer a balanced and authoritative treatment on complex current events and countries of the world. Includes books in these areas:

• Arts & Humanities  
• Medicine & Health  
• Science & Mathematics  
• Social Sciences  
• Art as commentary
• Early childhood development
• Citizen scientists
• Emergency manager law
• Environmental health
• Government regulations
• Health care access
• Infrastructure
• Investigative journalism
• Lead and Copper Rule
• Lead toxicity
• Volunteerism
• Water filtration
• Water Resource Development Act (S.2848)
• Water rights
• Water supply policy
• Water supply regulation

Related subject guide

• The Flint Water Crisis: A Guide to Information Resources by Paul Streby Last Updated May 22, 2024 497 views this year
• << Previous: Business, Economics, & Management
• Next: Education & Social Work >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 4:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.umflint.edu/topics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts

Marie-josée drolet.

1 Department of Occupational Therapy (OT), Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada

Eugénie Rose-Derouin

2 Bachelor OT program, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada

Julie-Claude Leblanc

Mélanie ruest, bryn williams-jones.

3 Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal (Québec), Canada

In the context of academic research, a diversity of ethical issues, conditioned by the different roles of members within these institutions, arise. Previous studies on this topic addressed mainly the perceptions of researchers. However, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the transversal ethical issues from a wider spectrum, including other members of academic institutions as the research ethics board (REB) members, and the research ethics experts. The present study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to document the ethical issues experienced by a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts. Data collection involved socio-demographic questionnaires and individual semi-structured interviews. Following the triangulation of different perspectives (researchers, REB members and ethics experts), emerging ethical issues were synthesized in ten units of meaning: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. This study highlighted several problematic elements that can support the identification of future solutions to resolve transversal ethical issues in research that affect the heterogeneous members of the academic community.

Introduction

Research includes a set of activities in which researchers use various structured methods to contribute to the development of knowledge, whether this knowledge is theoretical, fundamental, or applied (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). University research is carried out in a highly competitive environment that is characterized by ever-increasing demands (i.e., on time, productivity), insufficient access to research funds, and within a market economy that values productivity and speed often to the detriment of quality or rigour – this research context creates a perfect recipe for breaches in research ethics, like research misbehaviour or misconduct (i.e., conduct that is ethically questionable or unacceptable because it contravenes the accepted norms of responsible conduct of research or compromises the respect of core ethical values that are widely held by the research community) (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ; Sieber, 2004 ). Problematic ethics and integrity issues – e.g., conflicts of interest, falsification of data, non-respect of participants’ rights, and plagiarism, to name but a few – have the potential to both undermine the credibility of research and lead to negative consequences for many stakeholders, including researchers, research assistants and personnel, research participants, academic institutions, and society as a whole (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ). It is thus evident that the academic community should be able to identify these different ethical issues in order to evaluate the nature of the risks that they pose (and for whom), and then work towards their prevention or management (i.e., education, enhanced policies and procedures, risk mitigation strategies).

In this article, we define an “ethical issue” as any situation that may compromise, in whole or in part, the respect of at least one moral value (Swisher et al., 2005 ) that is considered socially legitimate and should thus be respected. In general, ethical issues occur at three key moments or stages of the research process: (1) research design (i.e., conception, project planning), (2) research conduct (i.e., data collection, data analysis) and (3) knowledge translation or communication (e.g., publications of results, conferences, press releases) (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). According to Sieber ( 2004 ), ethical issues in research can be classified into five categories, related to: (a) communication with participants and the community, (b) acquisition and use of research data, (c) external influence on research, (d) risks and benefits of the research, and (e) selection and use of research theories and methods. Many of these issues are related to breaches of research ethics norms, misbehaviour or research misconduct. Bruhn et al., ( 2002 ) developed a typology of misbehaviour and misconduct in academia that can be used to judge the seriousness of different cases. This typology takes into consideration two axes of reflection: (a) the origin of the situation (i.e., is it the researcher’s own fault or due to the organizational context?), and (b) the scope and severity (i.e., is this the first instance or a recurrent behaviour? What is the nature of the situation? What are the consequences, for whom, for how many people, and for which organizations?).

A previous detailed review of the international literature on ethical issues in research revealed several interesting findings (Beauchemin et al., 2021 ). Indeed, the current literature is dominated by descriptive ethics, i.e., the sharing by researchers from various disciplines of the ethical issues they have personally experienced. While such anecdotal documentation is relevant, it is insufficient because it does not provide a global view of the situation. Among the reviewed literature, empirical studies were in the minority (Table  1 ) – only about one fifth of the sample (n = 19) presented empirical research findings on ethical issues in research. The first of these studies was conducted almost 50 years ago (Hunt et al., 1984 ), with the remainder conducted in the 1990s. Eight studies were conducted in the United States (n = 8), five in Canada (n = 5), three in England (n = 3), two in Sweden (n = 2) and one in Ghana (n = 1).

Summary of Empirical Studies on Ethical Issues in Research by the year of publication

Further, the majority of studies in our sample (n = 12) collected the perceptions of a homogeneous group of participants, usually researchers (n = 14) and sometimes health professionals (n = 6). A minority of studies (n = 7) triangulated the perceptions of diverse research stakeholders (i.e., researchers and research participants, or students). To our knowledge, only one study has examined perceptions of ethical issues in research by research ethics board members (REB; Institutional Review Boards [IRB] in the USA), and none to date have documented the perceptions of research ethics experts. Finally, nine studies (n = 9) adopted a qualitative design, seven studies (n = 7) a quantitative design, and three (n = 3) a mixed-methods design.

More studies using empirical research methods are needed to better identify broader trends, to enrich discussions on the values that should govern responsible conduct of research in the academic community, and to evaluate the means by which these values can be supported in practice (Bahn, 2012 ; Beauchemin et al., 2021 ; Bruhn et al., 2002 ; Henderson et al., 2013 ; Resnik & Elliot, 2016; Sieber 2004 ). To this end, we conducted an empirical qualitative study to document the perceptions and experiences of a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts, to answer the following broad question: What are the ethical issues in research?

Research Methods

Research design.

A qualitative research approach involving individual semi-structured interviews was used to systematically document ethical issues (De Poy & Gitlin, 2010 ; Hammell et al., 2000 ). Specifically, a descriptive phenomenological approach inspired by the philosophy of Husserl was used (Husserl, 1970 , 1999 ), as it is recommended for documenting the perceptions of ethical issues raised by various practices (Hunt & Carnavale, 2011 ).

Ethical considerations

The principal investigator obtained ethics approval for this project from the Research Ethics Board of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR). All members of the research team signed a confidentiality agreement, and research participants signed the consent form after reading an information letter explaining the nature of the research project.

Sampling and recruitment

As indicated above, three types of participants were sought: (1) researchers from different academic disciplines conducting research (i.e., theoretical, fundamental or empirical) in Canadian universities; (2) REB members working in Canadian organizations responsible for the ethical review, oversight or regulation of research; and (3) research ethics experts, i.e., academics or ethicists who teach research ethics, conduct research in research ethics, or are scholars who have acquired a specialization in research ethics. To be included in the study, participants had to work in Canada, speak and understand English or French, and be willing to participate in the study. Following Thomas and Polio’s (2002) recommendation to recruit between six and twelve participants (for a homogeneous sample) to ensure data saturation, for our heterogeneous sample, we aimed to recruit approximately twelve participants in order to obtain data saturation. Having used this method several times in related projects in professional ethics, data saturation is usually achieved with 10 to 15 participants (Drolet & Goulet, 2018 ; Drolet & Girard, 2020 ; Drolet et al., 2020 ). From experience, larger samples only serve to increase the degree of data saturation, especially in heterogeneous samples (Drolet et al., 2017 , 2019 ; Drolet & Maclure, 2016 ).

Purposive sampling facilitated the identification of participants relevant to documenting the phenomenon in question (Fortin, 2010 ). To ensure a rich and most complete representation of perceptions, we sought participants with varied and complementary characteristics with regards to the social roles they occupy in research practice (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ). A triangulation of sources was used for the recruitment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006 ). The websites of Canadian universities and Canadian health institution REBs, as well as those of major Canadian granting agencies (i.e., the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Fonds de recherche du Quebec), were searched to identify individuals who might be interested in participating in the study. Further, people known by the research team for their knowledge and sensitivity to ethical issues in research were asked to participate. Research participants were also asked to suggest other individuals who met the study criteria.

Data Collection

Two tools were used for data collecton: (a) a socio-demographic questionnaire, and (b) a semi-structured individual interview guide. English and French versions of these two documents were used and made available, depending on participant preferences. In addition, although the interview guide contained the same questions, they were adapted to participants’ specific roles (i.e., researcher, REB member, research ethics expert). When contacted by email by the research assistant, participants were asked to confirm under which role they wished to participate (because some participants might have multiple, overlapping responsibilities) and they were sent the appropriate interview guide.

The interview guides each had two parts: an introduction and a section on ethical issues. The introduction consisted of general questions to put the participant at ease (i.e., “Tell me what a typical day at work is like for you”). The section on ethical issues was designed to capture the participant’s perceptions through questions such as: “Tell me three stories you have experienced at work that involve an ethical issue?” and “Do you feel that your organization is doing enough to address, manage, and resolve ethical issues in your work?”. Although some interviews were conducted in person, the majority were conducted by videoconference to promote accessibility and because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were digitally recorded so that the verbatim could be transcribed in full, and varied between 40 and 120 min in duration, with an average of 90 min. Research assistants conducted the interviews and transcribed the verbatim.

Data Analysis

The socio-demographic questionnaires were subjected to simple descriptive statistical analyses (i.e., means and totals), and the semi-structured interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis. The steps proposed by Giorgi ( 1997 ) for a Husserlian phenomenological reduction of the data were used. After collecting, recording, and transcribing the interviews, all verbatim were analyzed by at least two analysts: a research assistant (2nd author of this article) and the principal investigator (1st author) or a postdoctoral fellow (3rd author). The repeated reading of the verbatim allowed the first analyst to write a synopsis, i.e., an initial extraction of units of meaning. The second analyst then read the synopses, which were commented and improved if necessary. Agreement between analysts allowed the final drafting of the interview synopses, which were then analyzed by three analysts to generate and organize the units of meaning that emerged from the qualitative data.

Participants

Sixteen individuals (n = 16) participated in the study, of whom nine (9) identified as female and seven (7) as male (Table  2 ). Participants ranged in age from 22 to 72 years, with a mean age of 47.5 years. Participants had between one (1) and 26 years of experience in the research setting, with an average of 14.3 years of experience. Participants held a variety of roles, including: REB members (n = 11), researchers (n = 10), research ethics experts (n = 4), and research assistant (n = 1). As mentioned previously, seven (7) participants held more than one role, i.e., REB member, research ethics expert, and researcher. The majority (87.5%) of participants were working in Quebec, with the remaining working in other Canadian provinces. Although all participants considered themselves to be francophone, one quarter (n = 4) identified themselves as belonging to a cultural minority group.

Description of Participants

With respect to their academic background, most participants (n = 9) had a PhD, three (3) had a post-doctorate, two (2) had a master’s degree, and two (2) had a bachelor’s degree. Participants came from a variety of disciplines: nine (9) had a specialty in the humanities or social sciences, four (4) in the health sciences and three (3) in the natural sciences. In terms of their knowledge of ethics, five (5) participants reported having taken one university course entirely dedicated to ethics, four (4) reported having taken several university courses entirely dedicated to ethics, three (3) had a university degree dedicated to ethics, while two (2) only had a few hours or days of training in ethics and two (2) reported having no knowledge of ethics.

Ethical issues

As Fig.  1 illustrates, ten units of meaning emerge from the data analysis, namely: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. To illustrate the results, excerpts from verbatim interviews are presented in the following sub-sections. Most of the excerpts have been translated into English as the majority of interviews were conducted with French-speaking participants.

Ethical issues in research according to the participants

Research Integrity

The research environment is highly competitive and performance-based. Several participants, in particular researchers and research ethics experts, felt that this environment can lead both researchers and research teams to engage in unethical behaviour that reflects a lack of research integrity. For example, as some participants indicated, competition for grants and scientific publications is sometimes so intense that researchers falsify research results or plagiarize from colleagues to achieve their goals.

Some people will lie or exaggerate their research findings in order to get funding. Then, you see it afterwards, you realize: “ah well, it didn’t work, but they exaggerated what they found and what they did” (participant 14). Another problem in research is the identification of authors when there is a publication. Very often, there are authors who don’t even know what the publication is about and that their name is on it. (…) The time that it surprised me the most was just a few months ago when I saw someone I knew who applied for a teaching position. He got it I was super happy for him. Then I looked at his publications and … there was one that caught my attention much more than the others, because I was in it and I didn’t know what that publication was. I was the second author of a publication that I had never read (participant 14). I saw a colleague who had plagiarized another colleague. [When the colleague] found out about it, he complained. So, plagiarism is a serious [ethical breach]. I would also say that there is a certain amount of competition in the university faculties, especially for grants (…). There are people who want to win at all costs or get as much as possible. They are not necessarily going to consider their colleagues. They don’t have much of a collegial spirit (participant 10).

These examples of research misbehaviour or misconduct are sometimes due to or associated with situations of conflicts of interest, which may be poorly managed by certain researchers or research teams, as noted by many participants.

Conflict of interest

The actors and institutions involved in research have diverse interests, like all humans and institutions. As noted in Chap. 7 of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2, 2018),

“researchers and research students hold trust relationships, either directly or indirectly, with participants, research sponsors, institutions, their professional bodies and society. These trust relationships can be put at risk by conflicts of interest that may compromise independence, objectivity or ethical duties of loyalty. Although the potential for such conflicts has always existed, pressures on researchers (i.e., to delay or withhold dissemination of research outcomes or to use inappropriate recruitment strategies) heighten concerns that conflicts of interest may affect ethical behaviour” (p. 92).

The sources of these conflicts are varied and can include interpersonal conflicts, financial partnerships, third-party pressures, academic or economic interests, a researcher holding multiple roles within an institution, or any other incentive that may compromise a researcher’s independence, integrity, and neutrality (TCPS2, 2018). While it is not possible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, it is important to manage them properly and to avoid temptations to behave unethically.

Ethical temptations correspond to situations in which people are tempted to prioritize their own interests to the detriment of the ethical goods that should, in their own context, govern their actions (Swisher et al., 2005 ). In the case of researchers, this refers to situations that undermine independence, integrity, neutrality, or even the set of principles that govern research ethics (TCPS2, 2018) or the responsible conduct of research. According to study participants, these types of ethical issues frequently occur in research. Many participants, especially researchers and REB members, reported that conflicts of interest can arise when members of an organization make decisions to obtain large financial rewards or to increase their academic profile, often at the expense of the interests of members of their research team, research participants, or even the populations affected by their research.

A company that puts money into making its drug work wants its drug to work. So, homeopathy is a good example, because there are not really any consequences of homeopathy, there are not very many side effects, because there are no effects at all. So, it’s not dangerous, but it’s not a good treatment either. But some people will want to make it work. And that’s a big issue when you’re sitting at a table and there are eight researchers, and there are two or three who are like that, and then there are four others who are neutral, and I say to myself, this is not science. I think that this is a very big ethical issue (participant 14). There are also times in some research where there will be more links with pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, there are then large amounts of money that will be very interesting for the health-care institutions because they still receive money for clinical trials. They’re still getting some compensation because its time consuming for the people involved and all that. The pharmaceutical companies have money, so they will compensate, and that is sometimes interesting for the institutions, and since we are a bit caught up in this, in the sense that we have no choice but to accept it. (…) It may not be the best research in the world, there may be a lot of side effects due to the drugs, but it’s good to accept it, we’re going to be part of the clinical trial (participant 3). It is integrity, what we believe should be done or said. Often by the pressure of the environment, integrity is in tension with the pressures of the environment, so it takes resistance, it takes courage in research. (…) There were all the debates there about the problems of research that was funded and then the companies kept control over what was written. That was really troubling for a lot of researchers (participant 5).

Further, these situations sometimes have negative consequences for research participants as reported by some participants.

Respect for research participants

Many research projects, whether they are psychosocial or biomedical in nature, involve human participants. Relationships between the members of research teams and their research participants raise ethical issues that can be complex. Research projects must always be designed to respect the rights and interests of research participants, and not just those of researchers. However, participants in our study – i.e., REB members, researchers, and research ethics experts – noted that some research teams seem to put their own interests ahead of those of research participants. They also emphasized the importance of ensuring the respect, well-being, and safety of research participants. The ethical issues related to this unit of meaning are: respect for free, informed and ongoing consent of research participants; respect for and the well-being of participants; data protection and confidentiality; over-solicitation of participants; ownership of the data collected on participants; the sometimes high cost of scientific innovations and their accessibility; balance between the social benefits of research and the risks to participants (particularly in terms of safety); balance between collective well-being (development of knowledge) and the individual rights of participants; exploitation of participants; paternalism when working with populations in vulnerable situations; and the social acceptability of certain types of research. The following excerpts present some of these issues.

Where it disturbs me ethically is in the medical field – because it’s more in the medical field that we’re going to see this – when consent forms are presented to patients to solicit them as participants, and then [these forms] have an average of 40 pages. That annoys me. When they say that it has to be easy to understand and all that, adapted to the language, and then the hyper-technical language plus there are 40 pages to read, I don’t understand how you’re going to get informed consent after reading 40 pages. (…) For me, it doesn’t work. I read them to evaluate them and I have a certain level of education and experience in ethics, and there are times when I don’t understand anything (participant 2). There is a lot of pressure from researchers who want to recruit research participants (…). The idea that when you enter a health care institution, you become a potential research participant, when you say “yes to a research, you check yes to all research”, then everyone can ask you. I think that researchers really have this fantasy of saying to themselves: “as soon as people walk through the door of our institution, they become potential participants with whom we can communicate and get them involved in all projects”. There’s a kind of idea that, yes, it can be done, but it has to be somewhat supervised to avoid over-solicitation (…). Researchers are very interested in facilitating recruitment and making it more fluid, but perhaps to the detriment of confidentiality, privacy, and respect; sometimes that’s what it is, to think about what type of data you’re going to have in your bank of potential participants? Is it just name and phone number or are you getting into more sensitive information? (participant 9).

In addition, one participant reported that their university does not provide the resources required to respect the confidentiality of research participants.

The issue is as follows: researchers, of course, commit to protecting data with passwords and all that, but we realize that in practice, it is more difficult. It is not always as protected as one might think, because professor-researchers will run out of space. Will the universities make rooms available to researchers, places where they can store these things, especially when they have paper documentation, and is there indeed a guarantee of confidentiality? Some researchers have told me: “Listen; there are even filing cabinets in the corridors”. So, that certainly poses a concrete challenge. How do we go about challenging the administrative authorities? Tell them it’s all very well to have an ethics committee, but you have to help us, you also have to make sure that the necessary infrastructures are in place so that what we are proposing is really put into practice (participant 4).

If the relationships with research participants are likely to raise ethical issues, so too are the relationships with students, notably research assistants. On this topic, several participants discussed the lack of supervision or recognition offered to research assistants by researchers as well as the power imbalances between members of the research team.

Lack of Supervision and Power Imbalances

Many research teams are composed not only of researchers, but also of students who work as research assistants. The relationship between research assistants and other members of research teams can sometimes be problematic and raise ethical issues, particularly because of the inevitable power asymmetries. In the context of this study, several participants – including a research assistant, REB members, and researchers – discussed the lack of supervision or recognition of the work carried out by students, psychological pressure, and the more or less well-founded promises that are sometimes made to students. Participants also mentioned the exploitation of students by certain research teams, which manifest when students are inadequately paid, i.e., not reflective of the number of hours actually worked, not a fair wage, or even a wage at all.

[As a research assistant], it was more of a feeling of distress that I felt then because I didn’t know what to do. (…) I was supposed to get coaching or be supported, but I didn’t get anything in the end. It was like, “fix it by yourself”. (…) All research assistants were supposed to be supervised, but in practice they were not (participant 1). Very often, we have a master’s or doctoral student that we put on a subject and we consider that the project will be well done, while the student is learning. So, it happens that the student will do a lot of work and then we realize that the work is poorly done, and it is not necessarily the student’s fault. He wasn’t necessarily well supervised. There are directors who have 25 students, and they just don’t supervise them (participant 14). I think it’s really the power relationship. I thought to myself, how I saw my doctorate, the beginning of my research career, I really wanted to be in that laboratory, but they are the ones who are going to accept me or not, so what do I do to be accepted? I finally accept their conditions [which was to work for free]. If these are the conditions that are required to enter this lab, I want to go there. So, what do I do, well I accepted. It doesn’t make sense, but I tell myself that I’m still privileged, because I don’t have so many financial worries, one more reason to work for free, even though it doesn’t make sense (participant 1). In research, we have research assistants. (…). The fact of using people… so that’s it, you have to take into account where they are, respect them, but at the same time they have to show that they are there for the research. In English, we say “carry” or take care of people. With research assistants, this is often a problem that I have observed: for grant machines, the person is the last to be found there. Researchers, who will take, use student data, without giving them the recognition for it (participant 5). The problem at our university is that they reserve funding for Canadian students. The doctoral clientele in my field is mostly foreign students. So, our students are poorly funded. I saw one student end up in the shelter, in a situation of poverty. It ended very badly for him because he lacked financial resources. Once you get into that dynamic, it’s very hard to get out. I was made aware of it because the director at the time had taken him under her wing and wanted to try to find a way to get him out of it. So, most of my students didn’t get funded (participant 16). There I wrote “manipulation”, but it’s kind of all promises all the time. I, for example, was promised a lot of advancement, like when I got into the lab as a graduate student, it was said that I had an interest in [this particular area of research]. I think there are a lot of graduate students who must have gone through that, but it is like, “Well, your CV has to be really good, if you want to do a lot of things and big things. If you do this, if you do this research contract, the next year you could be the coordinator of this part of the lab and supervise this person, get more contracts, be paid more. Let’s say: you’ll be invited to go to this conference, this big event”. They were always dangling something, but you have to do that first to get there. But now, when you’ve done that, you have to do this business. It’s like a bit of manipulation, I think. That was very hard to know who is telling the truth and who is not (participant 1).

These ethical issues have significant negative consequences for students. Indeed, they sometimes find themselves at the mercy of researchers, for whom they work, struggling to be recognized and included as authors of an article, for example, or to receive the salary that they are due. For their part, researchers also sometimes find themselves trapped in research structures that can negatively affect their well-being. As many participants reported, researchers work in organizations that set very high productivity standards and in highly competitive contexts, all within a general culture characterized by individualism.

Individualism and performance

Participants, especially researchers, discussed the culture of individualism and performance that characterizes the academic environment. In glorifying excellence, some universities value performance and productivity, often at the expense of psychological well-being and work-life balance (i.e., work overload and burnout). Participants noted that there are ethical silences in their organizations on this issue, and that the culture of individualism and performance is not challenged for fear of retribution or simply to survive, i.e., to perform as expected. Participants felt that this culture can have a significant negative impact on the quality of the research conducted, as research teams try to maximize the quantity of their work (instead of quality) in a highly competitive context, which is then exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, and where everything must be done too quickly.

The work-life balance with the professional ethics related to work in a context where you have too much and you have to do a lot, it is difficult to balance all that and there is a lot of pressure to perform. If you don’t produce enough, that’s it; after that, you can’t get any more funds, so that puts pressure on you to do more and more and more (participant 3). There is a culture, I don’t know where it comes from, and that is extremely bureaucratic. If you dare to raise something, you’re going to have many, many problems. They’re going to make you understand it. So, I don’t talk. It is better: your life will be easier. I think there are times when you have to talk (…) because there are going to be irreparable consequences. (…) I’m not talking about a climate of terror, because that’s exaggerated, it’s not true, people are not afraid. But people close their office door and say nothing because it’s going to make their work impossible and they’re not going to lose their job, they’re not going to lose money, but researchers need time to be focused, so they close their office door and say nothing (participant 16).

Researchers must produce more and more, and they feel little support in terms of how to do such production, ethically, and how much exactly they are expected to produce. As this participant reports, the expectation is an unspoken rule: more is always better.

It’s sometimes the lack of a clear line on what the expectations are as a researcher, like, “ah, we don’t have any specific expectations, but produce, produce, produce, produce.” So, in that context, it’s hard to be able to put the line precisely: “have I done enough for my work?” (participant 3).

Inadequate ethical Guidance

While the productivity expectation is not clear, some participants – including researchers, research ethics experts, and REB members – also felt that the ethical expectations of some REBs were unclear. The issue of the inadequate ethical guidance of research includes the administrative mechanisms to ensure that research projects respect the principles of research ethics. According to those participants, the forms required for both researchers and REB members are increasingly long and numerous, and one participant noted that the standards to be met are sometimes outdated and disconnected from the reality of the field. Multicentre ethics review (by several REBs) was also critiqued by a participant as an inefficient method that encumbers the processes for reviewing research projects. Bureaucratization imposes an ever-increasing number of forms and ethics guidelines that actually hinder researchers’ ethical reflection on the issues at stake, leading the ethics review process to be perceived as purely bureaucratic in nature.

The ethical dimension and the ethical review of projects have become increasingly bureaucratized. (…) When I first started working (…) it was less bureaucratic, less strict then. I would say [there are now] tons of forms to fill out. Of course, we can’t do without it, it’s one of the ways of marking out ethics and ensuring that there are ethical considerations in research, but I wonder if it hasn’t become too bureaucratized, so that it’s become a kind of technical reflex to fill out these forms, and I don’t know if people really do ethical reflection as such anymore (participant 10). The fundamental structural issue, I would say, is the mismatch between the normative requirements and the real risks posed by the research, i.e., we have many, many requirements to meet; we have very long forms to fill out but the research projects we evaluate often pose few risks (participant 8). People [in vulnerable situations] were previously unable to participate because of overly strict research ethics rules that were to protect them, but in the end [these rules] did not protect them. There was a perverse effect, because in the end there was very little research done with these people and that’s why we have very few results, very little evidence [to support practices with these populations] so it didn’t improve the quality of services. (…) We all understand that we have to be careful with that, but when the research is not too risky, we say to ourselves that it would be good because for once a researcher who is interested in that population, because it is not a very popular population, it would be interesting to have results, but often we are blocked by the norms, and then we can’t accept [the project] (participant 2).

Moreover, as one participant noted, accessing ethics training can be a challenge.

There is no course on research ethics. […] Then, I find that it’s boring because you go through university and you come to do your research and you know how to do quantitative and qualitative research, but all the research ethics, where do you get this? I don’t really know (participant 13).

Yet, such training could provide relevant tools to resolve, to some extent, the ethical issues that commonly arise in research. That said, and as noted by many participants, many ethical issues in research are related to social injustices over which research actors have little influence.

Social Injustices

For many participants, notably researchers, the issues that concern social injustices are those related to power asymmetries, stigma, or issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion, i.e., social injustices related to people’s identities (Blais & Drolet, 2022 ). Participants reported experiencing or witnessing discrimination from peers, administration, or lab managers. Such oppression is sometimes cross-sectional and related to a person’s age, cultural background, gender or social status.

I have my African colleague who was quite successful when he arrived but had a backlash from colleagues in the department. I think it’s unconscious, nobody is overtly racist. But I have a young person right now who is the same, who has the same success, who got exactly the same early career award and I don’t see the same backlash. He’s just as happy with what he’s doing. It’s normal, they’re young and they have a lot of success starting out. So, I think there is discrimination. Is it because he is African? Is it because he is black? I think it’s on a subconscious level (participant 16).

Social injustices were experienced or reported by many participants, and included issues related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when one researcher is a woman.

If you do international research, there are things you can’t talk about (…). It is really a barrier to research to not be able to (…) address this question [i.e. the question of inequalities between men and women]. Women’s inequality is going to be addressed [but not within the country where the research takes place as if this inequality exists elsewhere but not here]. There are a lot of women working on inequality issues, doing work and it’s funny because I was talking to a young woman who works at Cairo University and she said to me: “Listen, I saw what you had written, you’re right. I’m willing to work on this but guarantee me a position at your university with a ticket to go”. So yes, there are still many barriers [for women in research] (participant 16).

Because of the varied contextual characteristics that intervene in their occurrence, these social injustices are also related to distributive injustices, as discussed by many participants.

Distributive Injustices

Although there are several views of distributive justice, a classical definition such as that of Aristotle ( 2012 ), describes distributive justice as consisting in distributing honours, wealth, and other social resources or benefits among the members of a community in proportion to their alleged merit. Justice, then, is about determining an equitable distribution of common goods. Contemporary theories of distributive justice are numerous and varied. Indeed, many authors (e.g., Fraser 2011 ; Mills, 2017 ; Sen, 2011 ; Young, 2011 ) have, since Rawls ( 1971 ), proposed different visions of how social burdens and benefits should be shared within a community to ensure equal respect, fairness, and distribution. In our study, what emerges from participants’ narratives is a definite concern for this type of justice. Women researchers, francophone researchers, early career researchers or researchers belonging to racialized groups all discussed inequities in the distribution of research grants and awards, and the extra work they need to do to somehow prove their worth. These inequities are related to how granting agencies determine which projects will be funded.

These situations make me work 2–3 times harder to prove myself and to show people in power that I have a place as a woman in research (participant 12). Number one: it’s conservative thinking. The older ones control what comes in. So, the younger people have to adapt or they don’t get funded (participant 14).

Whether it is discrimination against stigmatized or marginalized populations or interest in certain hot topics, granting agencies judge research projects according to criteria that are sometimes questionable, according to those participants. Faced with difficulties in obtaining funding for their projects, several strategies – some of which are unethical – are used by researchers in order to cope with these situations.

Sometimes there are subjects that everyone goes to, such as nanotechnology (…), artificial intelligence or (…) the therapeutic use of cannabis, which are very fashionable, and this is sometimes to the detriment of other research that is just as relevant, but which is (…), less sexy, less in the spirit of the time. (…) Sometimes this can lead to inequities in the funding of certain research sectors (participant 9). When we use our funds, we get them given to us, we pretty much say what we think we’re going to do with them, but things change… So, when these things change, sometimes it’s an ethical decision, but by force of circumstances I’m obliged to change the project a little bit (…). Is it ethical to make these changes or should I just let the money go because I couldn’t use it the way I said I would? (participant 3).

Moreover, these distributional injustices are not only linked to social injustices, but also epistemic injustices. Indeed, the way in which research honours and grants are distributed within the academic community depends on the epistemic authority of the researchers, which seems to vary notably according to their language of use, their age or their gender, but also to the research design used (inductive versus deductive), their decision to use (or not use) animals in research, or to conduct activist research.

Epistemic injustices

The philosopher Fricker ( 2007 ) conceptualized the notions of epistemic justice and injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to a form of social inequality that manifests itself in the access, recognition, and production of knowledge as well as the various forms of ignorance that arise (Godrie & Dos Santos, 2017 ). Addressing epistemic injustice necessitates acknowledging the iniquitous wrongs suffered by certain groups of socially stigmatized individuals who have been excluded from knowledge, thus limiting their abilities to interpret, understand, or be heard and account for their experiences. In this study, epistemic injustices were experienced or reported by some participants, notably those related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when a researcher is a woman or an early career researcher.

I have never sent a grant application to the federal government in English. I have always done it in French, even though I know that when you receive the review, you can see that reviewers didn’t understand anything because they are English-speaking. I didn’t want to get in the boat. It’s not my job to translate, because let’s be honest, I’m not as good in English as I am in French. So, I do them in my first language, which is the language I’m most used to. Then, technically at the administrative level, they are supposed to be able to do it, but they are not good in French. (…) Then, it’s a very big Canadian ethical issue, because basically there are technically two official languages, but Canada is not a bilingual country, it’s a country with two languages, either one or the other. (…) So I was not funded (participant 14).

Researchers who use inductive (or qualitative) methods observed that their projects are sometimes less well reviewed or understood, while research that adopts a hypothetical-deductive (or quantitative) or mixed methods design is better perceived, considered more credible and therefore more easily funded. Of course, regardless of whether a research project adopts an inductive, deductive or mixed-methods scientific design, or whether it deals with qualitative or quantitative data, it must respect a set of scientific criteria. A research project should achieve its objectives by using proven methods that, in the case of inductive research, are credible, reliable, and transferable or, in the case of deductive research, generalizable, objective, representative, and valid (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). Participants discussing these issues noted that researchers who adopt a qualitative design or those who question the relevance of animal experimentation or are not militant have sometimes been unfairly devalued in their epistemic authority.

There is a mini war between quantitative versus qualitative methods, which I think is silly because science is a method. If you apply the method well, it doesn’t matter what the field is, it’s done well and it’s perfect ” (participant 14). There is also the issue of the place of animals in our lives, because for me, ethics is human ethics, but also animal ethics. Then, there is a great evolution in society on the role of the animal… with the new law that came out in Quebec on the fact that animals are sensitive beings. Then, with the rise of the vegan movement, [we must ask ourselves]: “Do animals still have a place in research?” That’s a big question and it also means that there are practices that need to evolve, but sometimes there’s a disconnection between what’s expected by research ethics boards versus what’s expected in the field (participant 15). In research today, we have more and more research that is militant from an ideological point of view. And so, we have researchers, because they defend values that seem important to them, we’ll talk for example about the fight for equality and social justice. They have pressure to defend a form of moral truth and have the impression that everyone thinks like them or should do so, because they are defending a moral truth. This is something that we see more and more, namely the lack of distance between ideology and science (participant 8).

The combination or intersectionality of these inequities, which seems to be characterized by a lack of ethical support and guidance, is experienced in the highly competitive and individualistic context of research; it provides therefore the perfect recipe for researchers to experience ethical distress.

Ethical distress

The concept of “ethical distress” refers to situations in which people know what they should do to act ethically, but encounter barriers, generally of an organizational or systemic nature, limiting their power to act according to their moral or ethical values (Drolet & Ruest, 2021 ; Jameton, 1984 ; Swisher et al., 2005 ). People then run the risk of finding themselves in a situation where they do not act as their ethical conscience dictates, which in the long term has the potential for exhaustion and distress. The examples reported by participants in this study point to the fact that researchers in particular may be experiencing significant ethical distress. This distress takes place in a context of extreme competition, constant injunctions to perform, and where administrative demands are increasingly numerous and complex to complete, while paradoxically, they lack the time to accomplish all their tasks and responsibilities. Added to these demands are a lack of resources (human, ethical, and financial), a lack of support and recognition, and interpersonal conflicts.

We are in an environment, an elite one, you are part of it, you know what it is: “publish or perish” is the motto. Grants, there is a high level of performance required, to do a lot, to publish, to supervise students, to supervise them well, so yes, it is clear that we are in an environment that is conducive to distress. (…). Overwork, definitely, can lead to distress and eventually to exhaustion. When you know that you should take the time to read the projects before sharing them, but you don’t have the time to do that because you have eight that came in the same day, and then you have others waiting… Then someone rings a bell and says: “ah but there, the protocol is a bit incomplete”. Oh yes, look at that, you’re right. You make up for it, but at the same time it’s a bit because we’re in a hurry, we don’t necessarily have the resources or are able to take the time to do things well from the start, we have to make up for it later. So yes, it can cause distress (participant 9). My organization wanted me to apply in English, and I said no, and everyone in the administration wanted me to apply in English, and I always said no. Some people said: “Listen, I give you the choice”, then some people said: “Listen, I agree with you, but if you’re not [submitting] in English, you won’t be funded”. Then the fact that I am young too, because very often they will look at the CV, they will not look at the project: “ah, his CV is not impressive, we will not finance him”. This is complete nonsense. The person is capable of doing the project, the project is fabulous: we fund the project. So, that happened, organizational barriers: that happened a lot. I was not eligible for Quebec research funds (…). I had big organizational barriers unfortunately (participant 14). At the time of my promotion, some colleagues were not happy with the type of research I was conducting. I learned – you learn this over time when you become friends with people after you enter the university – that someone was against me. He had another candidate in mind, and he was angry about the selection. I was under pressure for the first three years until my contract was renewed. I almost quit at one point, but another colleague told me, “No, stay, nothing will happen”. Nothing happened, but these issues kept me awake at night (participant 16).

This difficult context for many researchers affects not only the conduct of their own research, but also their participation in research. We faced this problem in our study, despite the use of multiple recruitment methods, including more than 200 emails – of which 191 were individual solicitations – sent to potential participants by the two research assistants. REB members and organizations overseeing or supporting research (n = 17) were also approached to see if some of their employees would consider participating. While it was relatively easy to recruit REB members and research ethics experts, our team received a high number of non-responses to emails (n = 175) and some refusals (n = 5), especially by researchers. The reasons given by those who replied were threefold: (a) fear of being easily identified should they take part in the research, (b) being overloaded and lacking time, and (c) the intrusive aspect of certain questions (i.e., “Have you experienced a burnout episode? If so, have you been followed up medically or psychologically?”). In light of these difficulties and concerns, some questions in the socio-demographic questionnaire were removed or modified. Talking about burnout in research remains a taboo for many researchers, which paradoxically can only contribute to the unresolved problem of unhealthy research environments.

Returning to the research question and objective

The question that prompted this research was: What are the ethical issues in research? The purpose of the study was to describe these issues from the perspective of researchers (from different disciplines), research ethics board (REB) members, and research ethics experts. The previous section provided a detailed portrait of the ethical issues experienced by different research stakeholders: these issues are numerous, diverse and were recounted by a range of stakeholders.

The results of the study are generally consistent with the literature. For example, as in our study, the literature discusses the lack of research integrity on the part of some researchers (Al-Hidabi et al., 2018 ; Swazey et al., 1993 ), the numerous conflicts of interest experienced in research (Williams-Jones et al., 2013 ), the issues of recruiting and obtaining the free and informed consent of research participants (Provencher et al., 2014 ; Keogh & Daly, 2009 ), the sometimes difficult relations between researchers and REBs (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ), the epistemological issues experienced in research (Drolet & Ruest, accepted; Sieber 2004 ), as well as the harmful academic context in which researchers evolve, insofar as this is linked to a culture of performance, an overload of work in a context of accountability (Berg & Seeber, 2016 ; FQPPU; 2019 ) that is conducive to ethical distress and even burnout.

If the results of the study are generally in line with those of previous publications on the subject, our findings also bring new elements to the discussion while complementing those already documented. In particular, our results highlight the role of systemic injustices – be they social, distributive or epistemic – within the environments in which research is carried out, at least in Canada. To summarize, the results of our study point to the fact that the relationships between researchers and research participants are likely still to raise worrying ethical issues, despite widely accepted research ethics norms and institutionalized review processes. Further, the context in which research is carried out is not only conducive to breaches of ethical norms and instances of misbehaviour or misconduct, but also likely to be significantly detrimental to the health and well-being of researchers, as well as research assistants. Another element that our research also highlighted is the instrumentalization and even exploitation of students and research assistants, which is another important and worrying social injustice given the inevitable power imbalances between students and researchers.

Moreover, in a context in which ethical issues are often discussed from a micro perspective, our study helps shed light on both the micro- and macro-level ethical dimensions of research (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ; Glaser 1994 ). However, given that ethical issues in research are not only diverse, but also and above all complex, a broader perspective that encompasses the interplay between the micro and macro dimensions can enable a better understanding of these issues and thereby support the identification of the multiple factors that may be at their origin. Triangulating the perspectives of researchers with those of REB members and research ethics experts enabled us to bring these elements to light, and thus to step back from and critique the way that research is currently conducted. To this end, attention to socio-political elements such as the performance culture in academia or how research funds are distributed, and according to what explicit and implicit criteria, can contribute to identifying the sources of the ethical issues described above.

Contemporary culture characterized by the social acceleration

The German sociologist and philosopher Rosa (2010) argues that late modernity – that is, the period between the 1980s and today – is characterized by a phenomenon of social acceleration that causes various forms of alienation in our relationship to time, space, actions, things, others and ourselves. Rosa distinguishes three types of acceleration: technical acceleration , the acceleration of social changes and the acceleration of the rhythm of life . According to Rosa, social acceleration is the main problem of late modernity, in that the invisible social norm of doing more and faster to supposedly save time operates unchallenged at all levels of individual and collective life, as well as organizational and social life. Although we all, researchers and non-researchers alike, perceive this unspoken pressure to be ever more productive, the process of social acceleration as a new invisible social norm is our blind spot, a kind of tyrant over which we have little control. This conceptualization of the contemporary culture can help us to understand the context in which research is conducted (like other professional practices). To this end, Berg & Seeber ( 2016 ) invite faculty researchers to slow down in order to better reflect and, in the process, take care of their health and their relationships with their colleagues and students. Many women professors encourage their fellow researchers, especially young women researchers, to learn to “say No” in order to protect their mental and physical health and to remain in their academic careers (Allaire & Descheneux, 2022 ). These authors also remind us of the relevance of Kahneman’s ( 2012 ) work which demonstrates that it takes time to think analytically, thoroughly, and logically. Conversely, thinking quickly exposes humans to cognitive and implicit biases that then lead to errors in thinking (e.g., in the analysis of one’s own research data or in the evaluation of grant applications or student curriculum vitae). The phenomenon of social acceleration, which pushes the researcher to think faster and faster, is likely to lead to unethical bad science that can potentially harm humankind. In sum, Rosa’s invitation to contemporary critical theorists to seriously consider the problem of social acceleration is particularly insightful to better understand the ethical issues of research. It provides a lens through which to view the toxic context in which research is conducted today, and one that was shared by the participants in our study.

Clark & Sousa ( 2022 ) note, it is important that other criteria than the volume of researchers’ contributions be valued in research, notably quality. Ultimately, it is the value of the knowledge produced and its influence on the concrete lives of humans and other living beings that matters, not the quantity of publications. An interesting articulation of this view in research governance is seen in a change in practice by Australia’s national health research funder: they now restrict researchers to listing on their curriculum vitae only the top ten publications from the past ten years (rather than all of their publications), in order to evaluate the quality of contributions rather than their quantity. To create environments conducive to the development of quality research, it is important to challenge the phenomenon of social acceleration, which insidiously imposes a quantitative normativity that is both alienating and detrimental to the quality and ethical conduct of research. Based on our experience, we observe that the social norm of acceleration actively disfavours the conduct of empirical research on ethics in research. The fact is that researchers are so busy that it is almost impossible for them to find time to participate in such studies. Further, operating in highly competitive environments, while trying to respect the values and ethical principles of research, creates ethical paradoxes for members of the research community. According to Malherbe ( 1999 ), an ethical paradox is a situation where an individual is confronted by contradictory injunctions (i.e., do more, faster, and better). And eventually, ethical paradoxes lead individuals to situations of distress and burnout, or even to ethical failures (i.e., misbehaviour or misconduct) in the face of the impossibility of responding to contradictory injunctions.

Strengths and Limitations of the study

The triangulation of perceptions and experiences of different actors involved in research is a strength of our study. While there are many studies on the experiences of researchers, rarely are members of REBs and experts in research ethics given the space to discuss their views of what are ethical issues. Giving each of these stakeholders a voice and comparing their different points of view helped shed a different and complementary light on the ethical issues that occur in research. That said, it would have been helpful to also give more space to issues experienced by students or research assistants, as the relationships between researchers and research assistants are at times very worrying, as noted by a participant, and much work still needs to be done to eliminate the exploitative situations that seem to prevail in certain research settings. In addition, no Indigenous or gender diverse researchers participated in the study. Given the ethical issues and systemic injustices that many people from these groups face in Canada (Drolet & Goulet, 2018 ; Nicole & Drolet, in press ), research that gives voice to these researchers would be relevant and contribute to knowledge development, and hopefully also to change in research culture.

Further, although most of the ethical issues discussed in this article may be transferable to the realities experienced by researchers in other countries, the epistemic injustice reported by Francophone researchers who persist in doing research in French in Canada – which is an officially bilingual country but in practice is predominantly English – is likely specific to the Canadian reality. In addition, and as mentioned above, recruitment proved exceedingly difficult, particularly amongst researchers. Despite this difficulty, we obtained data saturation for all but two themes – i.e., exploitation of students and ethical issues of research that uses animals. It follows that further empirical research is needed to improve our understanding of these specific issues, as they may diverge to some extent from those documented here and will likely vary across countries and academic research contexts.

Conclusions

This study, which gave voice to researchers, REB members, and ethics experts, reveals that the ethical issues in research are related to several problematic elements as power imbalances and authority relations. Researchers and research assistants are subject to external pressures that give rise to integrity issues, among others ethical issues. Moreover, the current context of social acceleration influences the definition of the performance indicators valued in academic institutions and has led their members to face several ethical issues, including social, distributive, and epistemic injustices, at different steps of the research process. In this study, ten categories of ethical issues were identified, described and illustrated: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. The triangulation of the perspectives of different members (i.e., researchers from different disciplines, REB members, research ethics experts, and one research assistant) involved in the research process made it possible to lift the veil on some of these ethical issues. Further, it enabled the identification of additional ethical issues, especially systemic injustices experienced in research. To our knowledge, this is the first time that these injustices (social, distributive, and epistemic injustices) have been clearly identified.

Finally, this study brought to the fore several problematic elements that are important to address if the research community is to develop and implement the solutions needed to resolve the diverse and transversal ethical issues that arise in research institutions. A good starting point is the rejection of the corollary norms of “publish or perish” and “do more, faster, and better” and their replacement with “publish quality instead of quantity”, which necessarily entails “do less, slower, and better”. It is also important to pay more attention to the systemic injustices within which researchers work, because these have the potential to significantly harm the academic careers of many researchers, including women researchers, early career researchers, and those belonging to racialized groups as well as the health, well-being, and respect of students and research participants.

Acknowledgements

The team warmly thanks the participants who took part in the research and who made this study possible. Marie-Josée Drolet thanks the five research assistants who participated in the data collection and analysis: Julie-Claude Leblanc, Élie Beauchemin, Pénéloppe Bernier, Louis-Pierre Côté, and Eugénie Rose-Derouin, all students at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), two of whom were active in the writing of this article. MJ Drolet and Bryn Williams-Jones also acknowledge the financial contribution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), which supported this research through a grant. We would also like to thank the reviewers of this article who helped us improve it, especially by clarifying and refining our ideas.

Competing Interests and Funding

As noted in the Acknowledgements, this research was supported financially by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Al-Hidabi, Abdulmalek, M. D., & The, P. L. (2018). Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science. In K. Arai, S. Kapoor, & R. Bhatia (eds), Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC): Advances in Information and Communication, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (AISC), Springer, vol. 886, pp. 511–526
• Allaire, S., & Deschenaux, F. (2022). Récits de professeurs d’université à mi-carrière. Si c’était à refaire… . Presses de l’Université du Québec
• Aristotle . Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahn S. Keeping Academic Field Researchers Safe: Ethical Safeguards. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2012; 10 :83–91. doi: 10.1007/s10805-012-9159-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balk DE. Bereavement Research Using Control Groups: Ethical Obligations and Questions. Death Studies. 1995; 19 :123–138. doi: 10.1080/07481189508252720. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchemin, É., Côté, L. P., Drolet, M. J., & Williams-Jones, B. (2021). Conceptualizing Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Research: Results from a Critical and Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Academic Ethics , Early Online. 10.1007/s10805-021-09411-7
• Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The Slow Professor . University of Toronto Press
• Birchley G, Huxtable R, Murtagh M, Meulen RT, Flach P, Gooberman-Hill R. Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers’ perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies. BMC Medical Ethics. 2017; 18 (23):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blais, J., & Drolet, M. J. (2022). Les injustices sociales vécues en camp de réfugiés: les comprendre pour mieux intervenir auprès de personnes ayant séjourné dans un camp de réfugiés. Recueil annuel belge d’ergothérapie , 14, 37–48
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods . Allyn & Bacon
• Bouffard C. Le développement des pratiques de la génétique médicale et la construction des normes bioéthiques. Anthropologie et Sociétés. 2000; 24 (2):73–90. doi: 10.7202/015650ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human development. Experiments by nature and design . Harvard University Press
• Bruhn JG, Zajac G, Al-Kazemi AA, Prescott LD. Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. Journal of Higher Education. 2002; 73 (4):461–493. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0033. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark, A., & Sousa (2022). It’s time to end Canada’s obsession with research quantity. University Affairs/Affaires universitaires , February 14th. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/effective-successfull-happy-academic/its-time-to-end-canadas-obsession-with-research-quantity/?utm_source=University+Affairs+e-newsletter&utm_campaign=276a847f 70-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_02_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_314bc2ee29-276a847f70-425259989
• Colnerud G. Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics. 2015; 10 (4):238–253. doi: 10.1177/1747016114552339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison J. Dilemmas in Research: Issues of Vulnerability and Disempowerment for the Social Workers/Researcher. Journal of Social Work Practice. 2004; 18 (3):379–393. doi: 10.1080/0265053042000314447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to Research. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet, M. J., & Goulet, M. (2018). Travailler avec des patients autochtones du Canada ? Perceptions d’ergothérapeutes du Québec des enjeux éthiques de cette pratique. Recueil annuel belge francophone d’ergothérapie , 10 , 25–56
• Drolet MJ, Girard K. Les enjeux éthiques de la recherche en ergothérapie: un portrait préoccupant. Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2020; 3 (3):21–40. doi: 10.7202/1073779ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Girard K, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de l’enseignement en ergothérapie: des injustices au sein des départements universitaires. Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2020; 3 (1):22–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Maclure J. Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique de l’ergothérapie: perceptions d’ergothérapeutes. Revue Approches inductives. 2016; 3 (2):166–196. doi: 10.7202/1037918ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Pinard C, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique privée: des ergothérapeutes du Québec lancent un cri d’alarme. Ethica – Revue interdisciplinaire de recherche en éthique. 2017; 21 (2):173–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Ruest M. De l’éthique à l’ergothérapie: un cadre théorique et une méthode pour soutenir la pratique professionnelle. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet, M. J., & Ruest, M. (accepted). Quels sont les enjeux éthiques soulevés par la recherche scientifique? In M. Lalancette & J. Luckerhoff (dir). Initiation au travail intellectuel et à la recherche . Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 18 p
• Drolet MJ, Sauvageau A, Baril N, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de la formation clinique en ergothérapie. Revue Approches inductives. 2019; 6 (1):148–179. doi: 10.7202/1060048ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fédération québécoise des professeures et des professeurs d’université (FQPPU) Enquête nationale sur la surcharge administrative du corps professoral universitaire québécois. Principaux résultats et pistes d’action. Montréal: FQPPU; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fortin MH. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche. Méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Montréal, QC: Chenelière éducation; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser DM. Ethical dilemmas and practical problems for the practitioner researcher. Educational Action Research. 1997; 5 (1):161–171. doi: 10.1080/09650799700200014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser, N. (2011). Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution . La Découverte
• Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing . Oxford University Press
• Giorgi A, et al. De la méthode phénoménologique utilisée comme mode de recherche qualitative en sciences humaines: théories, pratique et évaluation. In: Poupart J, Groulx LH, Deslauriers JP, et al., editors. La recherche qualitative: enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Boucherville, QC: Gaëtan Morin; 1997. pp. 341–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgini V, Mecca JT, Gibson C, Medeiros K, Mumford MD, Connelly S, Devenport LD. Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct. Accountability in Research. 2016; 22 (3):123–138. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.955607. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, J. W. (1994). Three realms of ethics: Individual, institutional, societal. Theoretical model and case studies . Kansas Cuty, Sheed & Ward
• Godrie B, Dos Santos M. Présentation: inégalités sociales, production des savoirs et de l’ignorance. Sociologie et sociétés. 2017; 49 (1):7. doi: 10.7202/1042804ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammell KW, Carpenter C, Dyck I. Using Qualitative Research: A Practical Introduction for Occupational and Physical Therapists. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson M, Johnson NF, Auld G. Silences of ethical practice: dilemmas for researchers using social media. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2013; 19 (6):546–560. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2013.805656. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E. The train of thoughts in the lectures. In: Polifroni EC, Welch M, editors. Perspectives on Philosophy of Science in Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt SD, Chonko LB, Wilcox JB. Ethical problems of marketing researchers. Journal of Marketing Research. 1984; 21 :309–324. doi: 10.1177/002224378402100308. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt MR, Carnevale FA. Moral experience: A framework for bioethics research. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011; 37 (11):658–662. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.039008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jameton, A. (1984). Nursing practice: The ethical issues . Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall
• Jarvis K. Dilemmas in International Research and the Value of Practical Wisdom. Developing World Bioethics. 2017; 17 (1):50–58. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12121. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D. Système 1, système 2: les deux vitesses de la pensée. Paris: Flammarion; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keogh B, Daly L. The ethics of conducting research with mental health service users. British Journal of Nursing. 2009; 18 (5):277–281. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2009.18.5.40539. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lierville AL, Grou C, Pelletier JF. Enjeux éthiques potentiels liés aux partenariats patients en psychiatrie: État de situation à l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal. Santé mentale au Québec. 2015; 40 (1):119–134. doi: 10.7202/1032386ar. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Jacobsson L. Research ethics committees: A comparative study of assessment of ethical dilemmas. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 1999; 27 (2):152–159. doi: 10.1177/14034948990270020401. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malherbe JF. Compromis, dilemmes et paradoxes en éthique clinique. Anjou: Éditions Fides; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGinn R. Discernment and denial: Nanotechnology researchers’ recognition of ethical responsibilities related to their work. NanoEthics. 2013; 7 :93–105. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0174-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills, C. W. (2017). Black Rights / White rongs. The Critique of Racial Liberalism . Oxford University Press
• Miyazaki AD, Taylor KA. Researcher interaction biases and business ethics research: Respondent reactions to researcher characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008; 81 (4):779–795. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9547-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mondain N, Bologo E. L’intentionnalité du chercheur dans ses pratiques de production des connaissances: les enjeux soulevés par la construction des données en démographie et santé en Afrique. Cahiers de recherche sociologique. 2009; 48 :175–204. doi: 10.7202/039772ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicole, M., & Drolet, M. J. (in press). Fitting transphobia and cisgenderism in occupational therapy, Occupational Therapy Now
• Pope KS, Vetter VA. Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. The American Psychologist. 1992; 47 (3):397–411. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.3.397. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Provencher V, Mortenson WB, Tanguay-Garneau L, Bélanger K, Dagenais M. Challenges and strategies pertaining to recruitment and retention of frail elderly in research studies: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2014; 59 (1):18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2014.03.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice . Harvard University Press
• Resnik DB, Elliott KC. The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. Accountability in Research. 2016; 23 (1):31–46. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosa, H. (2010). Accélération et aliénation. Vers une théorie critique de la modernité tardive . Paris, Découverte
• Sen, A. K. (2011). The Idea of Justice . The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
• Sen, A. K. (1995). Inegality Reexaminated . Oxford University Press
• Sieber JE. Empirical Research on Research Ethics. Ethics & Behavior. 2004; 14 (4):397–412. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1404_9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigmon ST. Ethical practices and beliefs of psychopathology researchers. Ethics & Behavior. 1995; 5 (4):295–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0504_1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS. Ethical Problems in Academic Research. American Scientist. 1993; 81 (6):542–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swisher LL, Arsalanian LE, Davis CM. The realm-individual-process-situation (RIPS) model of ethical decision-making. HPA Resource. 2005; 5 (3):3–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) (2018). Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . Government of Canada, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf
• Thomas SP, Pollio HR. Listening to Patients: A Phenomenological Approach to Nursing Research and Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegand DL, Funk M. Consequences of clinical situations that cause critical care nurses to experience moral distress. Nursing Ethics. 2012; 19 (4):479–487. doi: 10.1177/0969733011429342. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams-Jones B, Potvin MJ, Mathieu G, Smith E. Barriers to research on research ethics review and conflicts of interest. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2013; 35 (5):14–20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the Politics of difference . Princeton University Press

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Science Issues

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the u.s..

64% of Americans live within 2 miles of a public electric vehicle charging station, and those who live closest to chargers view EVs more positively.

Americans overwhelmingly say access to IVF is a good thing

Seven-in-ten Americans say in vitro fertilization access is a good thing. Just 8% say it is a bad thing, and 22% are unsure.

Who do Americans feel comfortable talking to about their mental health?

Half of Americans or more say they are extremely or very comfortable talking about their mental health with a close friend, an immediate family member or a mental health therapist.

9 facts about Americans and marijuana

88% of Americans say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use. Just 11% say the drug should not be legal in any form.

Most Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana for Medical, Recreational Use

Americans largely favor legalization of the drug, including 57% who say it should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

As obesity rates rise in the U.S. and worldwide, new weight-loss drugs surge in popularity

Last year, Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy had combined sales of about $21.1 billion globally – up 89% since 2022.

How Americans View the Coronavirus, COVID-19 Vaccines Amid Declining Levels of Concern

Just 20% of the public views the coronavirus as a major threat to the health of the U.S. population and only 10% are very concerned about getting a serious case themselves. In addition, a relatively small share of U.S. adults (28%) say they’ve received an updated COVID-19 vaccine since last fall.

How Republicans view climate change and energy issues

Just 12% of Republicans and Republican leaners say dealing with climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

How Americans View Weight-Loss Drugs and Their Potential Impact on Obesity in the U.S.

About three-quarters of Americans say they have heard a lot or a little about Ozempic, Wegovy and other similar drugs that are being used for weight loss. Among those familiar with these drugs, 53% think they are good options to lose weight for people with obesity or a weight-related health condition.

Computer chips in human brains: How Americans view the technology amid recent advances

More than half of U.S. adults (56%) said that widespread use of brain chips to enhance cognitive function would be a bad idea for society.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Organizing Academic Research Papers: The Research Problem/Question

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

A research problem is a statement about an area of concern, a condition to be improved, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in scholarly literature, in theory, or in practice that points to the need for meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation. In some social science disciplines the research problem is typically posed in the form of a question. A research problem does not state how to do something, offer a vague or broad proposition, or present a value question.

Importance of...

The purpose of a problem statement is to:

• Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied . The reader is oriented to the significance of the study and the research questions or hypotheses to follow.
• Places the problem into a particular context that defines the parameters of what is to be investigated.
• Provides the framework for reporting the results and indicates what is probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings will present this information.

In the social sciences, the research problem establishes the means by which you must answer the "So What?" question. The "So What?" question refers to a research problem surviving the relevancy test [the quality of a measurement procedure that provides repeatability and accuracy]. Note that answering the "So What" question requires a commitment on your part to not only show that you have researched the material, but that you have thought about its significance.

To survive the "So What" question, problem statements should possess the following attributes:

• Clarity and precision [a well-written statement does not make sweeping generalizations and irresponsible statements],
• Identification of what would be studied, while avoiding the use of value-laden words and terms,
• Identification of an overarching question and key factors or variables,
• Identification of key concepts and terms,
• Articulation of the study's boundaries or parameters,
• Some generalizability in regards to applicability and bringing results into general use,
• Conveyance of the study's importance, benefits, and justification [regardless of the type of research, it is important to address the “so what” question by demonstrating that the research is not trivial],
• Does not have unnecessary jargon; and,
• Conveyance of more than the mere gathering of descriptive data providing only a snapshot of the issue or phenomenon under investigation.

Castellanos, Susie. Critical Writing and Thinking . The Writing Center. Dean of the College. Brown University; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); Thesis and Purpose Statements . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.  

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Types and Content

There are four general conceptualizations of a research problem in the social sciences:

• Casuist Research Problem -- this type of problem relates to the determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing moral dilemmas through the application of general rules and the careful distinction of special cases.
• Difference Research Problem -- typically asks the question, “Is there a difference between two or more groups or treatments?” This type of problem statement is used when the researcher compares or contrasts two or more phenomena.
• Descriptive Research Problem -- typically asks the question, "what is...?" with the underlying purpose to describe a situation, state, or existence of a specific phenomenon.
• Relational Research Problem -- suggests a relationship of some sort between two or more variables to be investigated. The underlying purpose is to investigate qualities/characteristics that are connected in some way.

A problem statement in the social sciences should contain :

• A lead-in that helps ensure the reader will maintain interest over the study
• A declaration of originality [e.g., mentioning a knowledge void, which would be supported by the literature review]
• An indication of the central focus of the study, and
• An explanation of the study's significance or the benefits to be derived from an investigating the problem.

II.  Sources of Problems for Investigation

Identifying a problem to study can be challenging, not because there is a lack of issues that could be investigated, but due to pursuing a goal of formulating a socially relevant and researchable problem statement that is unique and does not simply duplicate the work of others. To facilitate how you might select a problem from which to build a research study, consider these three broad sources of inspiration:

Deductions from Theory This relates to deductions made from social philosophy or generalizations embodied in life in society that the researcher is familiar with. These deductions from human behavior are then fitted within an empirical frame of reference through research. From a theory, the research can formulate a research problem or hypothesis stating the expected findings in certain empirical situations. The research asks the question: “What relationship between variables will be observed if theory aptly summarizes the state of affairs?” One can then design and carry out a systematic investigation to assess whether empirical data confirm or reject the hypothesis and hence the theory.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives Identifying a problem that forms the basis for a research study can come from academic movements and scholarship originating in disciplines outside of your primary area of study. A review of pertinent literature should include examining research from related disciplines, which can expose you to new avenues of exploration and analysis. An interdisciplinary approach to selecting a research problem offers an opportunity to construct a more comprehensive understanding of a very complex issue than any single discipline might provide.

Interviewing Practitioners The identification of research problems about particular topics can arise from formal or informal discussions with practitioners who provide insight into new directions for future research and how to make research findings increasingly relevant to practice. Discussions with experts in the field, such as, teachers, social workers, health care providers, etc., offers the chance to identify practical, “real worl” problems that may be understudied or ignored within academic circles. This approach also provides some practical knowledge which may help in the process of designing and conducting your study.

Personal Experience Your everyday experiences can give rise to worthwhile problems for investigation. Think critically about your own experiences and/or frustrations with an issue facing society, your community, or in your neighborhood. This can be derived, for example, from deliberate observations of certain relationships for which there is no clear explanation or witnessing an event that appears harmful to a person or group or that is out of the ordinary.

Relevant Literature The selection of a research problem can often be derived from an extensive and thorough review of pertinent research associated with your overall area of interest. This may reveal where gaps remain in our understanding of a topic. Research may be conducted to: 1) fill such gaps in knowledge; 2) evaluate if the methodologies employed in prior studies can be adapted to solve other problems; or, 3) determine if a similar study could be conducted in a different subject area or applied to different study sample [i.e., different groups of people]. Also, authors frequently conclude their studies by noting implications for further research; this can also be a valuable source of problems to investigate.

III.  What Makes a Good Research Statement?

A good problem statement begins by introducing the broad area in which your research is centered and then gradually leads the reader to the more narrow questions you are posing. The statement need not be lengthy but a good research problem should incorporate the following features:

Compelling topic Simple curiosity is not a good enough reason to pursue a research study. The problem that you choose to explore must be important to you and to a larger community you share. The problem chosen must be one that motivates you to address it. Supports multiple perspectives The problem most be phrased in a way that avoids dichotomies and instead supports the generation and exploration of multiple perspectives. A general rule of thumb is that a good research problem is one that would generate a variety of viewpoints from a composite audience made up of reasonable people. Researchable It seems a bit obvious, but you don't want to find yourself in the midst of investigating a complex  research project and realize that you don't have much to draw on for your research. Choose research problems that can be supported by the resources available to you. Not sure? Seek out help  from a librarian!

NOTE:   Do not confuse a research problem with a research topic. A topic is something to read and obtain information about whereas a problem is something to solve or framed as a question that must be answered.

IV.  Mistakes to Avoid

Beware of circular reasoning . Don’t state that the research problem as simply the absence of the thing you are suggesting. For example, if you propose, "The problem in this community is that it has no hospital."

This only leads to a research problem where:

• The need is for a hospital
• The objective is to create a hospital
• The method is to plan for building a hospital, and
• The evaluation is to measure if there is a hospital or not.

This is an example of a research problem that fails the "so what?" test because it does not reveal the relevance of why you are investigating the problem of having no hospital in the community [e.g., there's a hospital in the community ten miles away] and because the research problem does not elucidate the significance of why one should study the fact that no hospital exists in the community [e.g., that hospital in the community ten miles away has no emergency room].

Choosing and Refining Topics . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); How to Write a Research Question . The Writing Center. George Mason University; Invention: Developing a Thesis Statement . The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Problem Statements PowerPoint Presentation . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Procter, Margaret. Using Thesis Statements . University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Trochim, William M.K. Problem Formulation . Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Thesis and Purpose Statements . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: Background Information
• Next: Theoretical Framework >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

Fostering Integrity in Research (2017)

Chapter: 3 important trends and challenges in the research environment, 3 important trends and challenges in the research environment.

By working collaboratively, researchers can hope to answer questions never addressed before, including those with substantial influence on society. At the same time, today’s international, interdisciplinary, team-oriented, and technology-intensive research has created an environment more fraught with the potential for error and distortion.

— Indira Nath and Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker (2012)

Synopsis: A number of the elements in the research environment that were identified in the early 1990s as perhaps problematic for ensuring research integrity and maintaining good scientific practices have generally continued along their long-term trend lines, including the size and scope of the research enterprise, the complexity of collaboration, the growth of regulatory requirements, and the importance of industry sponsorship and entrepreneurial research. Several important new trends that were not examined in the 1992 Responsible Science report have also emerged, including the pervasive and growing importance of information technology in research, the globalization of research, and the increasing relevance of knowledge generated in certain fields to policy issues and political debates. These changes—the growing importance of information technology in particular—have led to important shifts in the institutions that support and underlie the research enterprise, such as scholarly publishing. They also have important implications for the ability of researchers, research institutions, journals, and sponsors to foster integrity and prevent research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process devoted a chapter to describing the contemporary research environment and outlining the most important changes that had occurred over the previous decades ( NAS-NAE-IOM, 1992 ). Responsible Science also described several additional features of the U.S. research scene of the early 1990s that had become the subject of discussion and concern due to possible negative impacts on the research environment, including research integrity ( NAS-NAE-IOM, 1992 ). This chapter will first explore the research environment issues identified in 1992—except for the reward system in science, which is covered in Chapter 6 —and describe trends over the past two decades. The second part of the chapter will

explore several important shifts in the research environment that have appeared since 1992 and were not considered in Responsible Science . These shifts carry several important implications for research integrity.

HOW RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN RESPONSIBLE SCIENCE HAVE EVOLVED SINCE THE EARLY 1990s

Size and scope of the research enterprise.

The 1992 report’s overview described growth in the size and scope of the research enterprise. The report observed that research in the pre–World War II United States—academic research in particular—was a mostly small-scale avocation of individual scientists, supported by limited funding from industry, government, and foundations. Following the significant wartime contributions of research efforts such as MIT’s Radiation Laboratory, federal support for science and engineering research increased rapidly. By 1991, research and development (R&D) was a $160 billion (current dollars) enterprise in the United States, employing about 744,000 people in industrial, academic, and governmental laboratories and producing more than 140,000 research articles annually ( NSB, 1996 , 2014b ; OECD, 2015 ).

Over the following two decades, the enterprise has continued to grow, with U.S. R&D totaling $456 billion in 2013, R&D employment rising to about 1,252,000, and the number of published research articles reaching more than 412,000 ( NSB, 2014b , 2016 ; OECD, 2015 ). The 1992 report paid particular attention to the growth in academic research and federal support, and this growth has continued. Between 1991 and 2014, academic R&D grew from around $17.5 billion to $67.1 billion, with federal support constituting 60–75 percent of the total ( NSB, 2016 ). 1 The number of science, engineering, and health doctorate holders employed in academia rose from 211,000 in 1991 to almost 309,000 in 2013 ( NSB, 2016 ). The number of PhDs awarded in science and engineering more than doubled, from approximately 19,000 in 1988 to almost 37,000 in 2013, with an increasing percentage of these doctorate recipients going to work outside academia ( NSB, 2016 ).

The 1992 Responsible Science report raised the concern that the increased size of the research enterprise might put stresses on key capabilities, such as the “overall workload associated with critical evaluation” ( NAS-NAE-IOM, 1992 ). The number and capacity of effective peer reviewers might not be keeping pace with the relentless growth in manuscripts and proposals. Concerns also have been raised about the increasing use of bibliometric-based metrics in evaluating

___________________

1 From 2010, the total includes academic R&D outside of science and engineering, which adds several billion dollars.

research as a substitute or replacement for expert judgment ( P. B. Lowry et al., 2012 ).

Complexity of Collaboration

Responsible Science described the growth of collaborative research after World War II, which has continued since the early 1990s. In contrast to earlier times, when articles with more than four co-authors and work involving more than one laboratory or research institution were rare, collaborative research of various types is now very common. The number of authors listed on articles is only one measure of collaboration, but it clearly reveals the overall trend. In an analysis of approximately 20 million research articles published since 1955 and 2 million patents registered since 1975, the number of authors on scientific papers grew from an average of 1.9 in 1955 to 3.5 in 2000 ( Wuchty et al., 2007 ). At the same time, single-author articles are becoming less common, constituting only about 11 percent of the total in 2012 ( King, 2013 ).

Several factors are driving the trend toward larger-scale research in general and in specific fields ( Stephan, 2012a ). These include the need for more elaborate and expensive equipment and the often related requirement for a variety of specialized skills and knowledge. These characteristics of “big science” have long been a given in fields such as high-energy physics and astronomy, in the form of particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider and modern telescopes. They have become more prominent recently in many areas of the life sciences as well. In describing the results of large life sciences research projects such as the Human Genome Project and ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements), former Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts (2012) noted that “the increased efficiency of data production by such projects is impressive.” In addition, as will be discussed in more detail below, the information technology revolution has radically lowered the costs of communication and collaboration of all types, including research collaboration.

Another factor contributing to the growth of team research has been an increase in the amount of interdisciplinary research. Interdisciplinary research efforts have continued to grow in importance and are extremely diverse ( Derrick et al., 2012 ). Interdisciplinary teams can range from local and informal to transnational and highly structured. They can be composed largely or entirely of researchers accustomed to working within a disciplinary framework, or they can consist partly or wholly of researchers who have been educated and have worked in interdisciplinary fields. Integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines can occur within the mind of a single person or through the collaborative efforts of a large team. For example, with the advent of “big data” and computational science, statisticians are increasingly included on projects where researchers have collected domain-specific data that they do not have the expertise to analyze. Interdisciplinary research is often focused on problems that have important so-

cietal implications. One current example of a growing interdisciplinary field is synthetic biology, which seeks a fundamental understanding of the workings of living systems along with the capability of re-creating living systems for a variety of applications in areas such as medicine and the environment. Synthetic biology research involves “biologists of many specialties, engineers, physicists, computer scientists, and others” ( NRC, 2010 ).

According to one analysis of trends in interdisciplinary research in six research fields, the growth of interdisciplinarity has been modest—about 5 percent—even as the number of authors per article has grown by 75 percent ( Porter and Rafols, 2009 ). This study found that the number of disciplines cited by papers in these six fields—mathematics, neurosciences, electrical and electronic engineering, biotechnology and applied microbiology, research and experimental medicine, and atomic, molecular, and chemical physics—has increased, but the distribution of citations is within neighboring research areas and has only slightly broadened. According to the authors, “These findings suggest that science is indeed becoming more interdisciplinary, but in small steps—drawing mainly from neighboring fields and only modestly increasing the connections to distant cognitive areas.”

Collaborative science requires that researchers focus at least some attention on coordination and interaction, which in theory might detract from the time and effort devoted to research. Yet Wuchty et al. (2007) found that multiauthor teams produced more highly cited work in each broad area of research and at each point in time. In addition, though solo authors in 1955 were more likely to produce papers that were highly cited, suggesting that these papers reported on the most influential concepts, results, or technologies, teams are more likely to produce highly cited papers today. As the authors wrote, “solo authors did produce the papers of singular distinction in science and engineering and social science in the 1950s, but the mantle of extraordinarily cited work has passed to teams by 2000.”

As more researchers work collaboratively and as the size of teams grows, the relationships among team members can become more complex. Team members can be at different research institutions and have different disciplinary backgrounds. Teams can contain researchers at all stages of their careers, from undergraduate and graduate students involved in research to senior researchers. The diversity and geographic spread of people involved in teams can create opportunities for miscommunication, misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations, and unresolved disputes. Whether these opportunities account for part of the increase in reports of undesirable research practices is unclear, but they can make the research environment more complicated and difficult than when teams were smaller, colocated more regularly, and more homogeneous in terms of discipline or nationality.

As research projects are undertaken by larger groups that bring together a greater diversity of expertise, encompass a broader range of disciplines, and strive for a greater degree of synthesis, the potential for misunderstandings can grow. Coordination of research inevitably becomes more complex, and the members

of a team may have less familiarity with the discipline-specific practices of other team members, making it more difficult for each collaborator to check and verify the work done by others. As the number of collaborators increases, there is more scope for disagreements over the allocation of credit. It becomes much more challenging to reward and recognize individual contributions, which has a big impact on junior researchers in particular. In addition, the mentoring of students in responsible research practices can become more impersonal and generic. The mental model of graduate education and training in which mentors work closely with graduate students and are able to take the time and effort to ensure that mentees understand the rules and can follow them may describe a smaller and smaller part of the research enterprise. Interdisciplinary work increases the possibility that the standards and expectations of different fields may come into conflict.

Regulation and Accountability

The 1992 report also noted that research activities were “increasingly subject to government regulations and guidelines that impose financial and administrative requirements” in areas such as laboratory safety, human subjects protection, drug-free workplace assurance, laboratory animal care, and the research use of recombinant DNA and toxic and radioactive materials. Along with the relatively new requirements and regulations related to research misconduct, the development of which is covered in Chapter 4 of this report, ensuring compliance with these expanding regulatory requirements had resulted in an expansion of administrative and oversight functions and staff at universities and required increasing time and attention from investigators. As an increasing percentage of faculty time goes toward fulfilling the requirements of various regulations and reporting requirements, research-related tasks such as mentoring and checking the work of subordinates may be shortchanged.

The administrative and regulatory compliance burden on research institutions and researchers remains significant. For example, respondents to a 2012 survey of 13,453 principal investigators undertaken by the Federal Demonstration Partnership estimated that, on average, 42 percent of the time they spent working on federally funded research projects was devoted to meeting regulatory and administrative requirements ( Schneider et al., 2012 ). According to the survey results, areas of regulation where compliance is particularly time consuming include those related to finances, personnel, and effort reporting. In 2014 the National Science Board issued a report that analyzes the regulatory compliance burden on faculty and makes recommendations for how it might be reduced ( NSB, 2014c ). A 2016 National Academies report evaluated current approaches to regulating academic research and made recommendations for achieving the goals of regulation while reducing financial and time burdens on institutions and faculty ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016 ).

Industry-Sponsored Research and Other Research Aimed at Commercialization

Increasingly, the scientific enterprise has been recognized not only as a place to expand knowledge but also as an engine for the creation of new products, novel therapies for disease, improved technologies, and new industries and jobs. To quote President Obama (2009b) , “scientific innovation offers us a chance to achieve prosperity.” The economic potential of science, however, also offers unique challenges to the responsible conduct of research, which were described in Responsible Science . These challenges can be seen in scientific research conducted in an industrial setting, scientific research conducted in university and research institutions in collaboration with industry, and university research that leads to entrepreneurial efforts by the researchers, requiring that they integrate both within themselves and in their professional behavior often divergent cultural understandings about the nature, purposes, and outcomes of research. These challenges include the potential of economic incentives to introduce scientific bias, the perception of conflict of interest due to economic incentives, and the potential effect of intellectual property protection on the timely dissemination of knowledge.

Industry funds and conducts a substantial amount of research in the United States. For both basic and applied research, as defined by the National Science Foundation, industry conducts 40 percent of the U.S. total ( NSB, 2016 ). Even considering just basic research, industry conducts approximately 24 percent, almost 90 percent of which it funds itself. Unlike academic research, corporate research is often driven by the needs of a company to remain financially solvent and to be accountable to shareholders. Corporate researchers often exist under hierarchical chains of supervision where management maintains greater control over the research process.

Only a fraction of the results of industry-funded research is published in the scientific and engineering literature and is thereby submitted to formal peer review. Of the articles published in 2013, authors from industry accounted for only 6 percent of the total, and that percentage has been declining over the past two decades ( NSB, 2014 ). This can be a product of the need to preserve intellectual property interests for trade secrets and obtaining patents. One consequence is that the knowledge gained in such research may not be widely disseminated or evaluated through the peer review process. This is not to say that such industry research is not of high quality or is not carefully reviewed. Companies can have strict protocols regarding the collection, documentation, and storage of data, particularly when there are strong regulatory or economic reasons to do so. Checking mechanisms may be built into industrial research to verify especially critical results ( Williams, 2012 ). And, as with all research, the use of research results in subsequent activities—including the production of commercial products—provides further checks on the validity of results.

However, both industrial research and industry-sponsored research in aca-

demic settings have been found to occasionally show signs of both unintentional and intentional bias. 2 For example, one might observe bias in the lack of publication of results with negative consequences for the profitability of a product or in the restriction of published findings to those that reflect positively on a product. An extreme case is the tobacco industry, which undertook a systematic effort over the course of decades to obscure the harmful effects of smoking ( Proctor, 2011 ). Other examples include episodes of alleged ghostwriting in some medical research, including the Paxil case described in Appendix D and also discussed in Chapter 7 . Such research tarnishes all other research by demonstrating that research agendas and techniques can be manipulated so severely as to subvert truth to other interests. Many journals have moved to reporting the financial interests of authors, whether the work has an industry sponsor or not, so that readers are made aware of the potential for bias.

In addition to collaborations with established industries, academic institutions have increasingly encouraged entrepreneurship and innovation for commercialization, particularly since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, which allowed institutions to hold patents on innovations produced with federal funding. Having seen the success of academic research products such as Gatorade and the Google search algorithm patent in generating revenue, institutions may hope that their researchers can achieve similar results. For fiscal 2011 the Association of University Technology Managers reported that the 186 institutions responding to its annual survey earned a total of $1.5 billion in running royalty income, executed 4,899 licenses, created 591 commercial products, and formed 671 start-up companies from their research (AUTM, 2012).

One result of the commercialization of university-generated technology is that the need to manage possible conflicts of interest has become an important issue in academic settings. A 2009 Institute of Medicine report explores the issue of institutional conflict of interest in more detail ( IOM, 2009 ). Individual conflicts of interest exist if the investigator is also the founder of a company conducting research or has a significant monetary stake in the research. This can also apply to an institution if it owns part of a company or has a financial stake in a faculty member’s research findings. Under the U.S. Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) policy, research funded by the Public Health Service requires institutions to maintain and enforce a FCOI policy; manage, reduce, or eliminate identified conflicts; report identified conflicts, the value of the conflicts, and a management plan to the Public Health Service Awarding Component; and publish significant financial interests of any personnel involved in the research on a publicly accessible website ( HHS, 2011b ). Currently, the Department of Health and Human Services does not have institutional regulations in the same manner as investigator FCOI regulations (required disclosure of FCOIs). Strengthened institutional FCOI regulations have been considered, but there is a need for further and separate consideration.

2 This is not meant to imply that research that is not sponsored by industry is necessarily unbiased.

The National Science Foundation policy is consistent with that of the Department of Health and Human Services. Regulations of individual financial conflicts of interest are further discussed in Chapter 7 and are also addressed in the context of best practices in Chapter 9 .

Additional individual conflicts of interest, or secondary interests, can also affect a research study, including political biases, white hat bias, commitment conflicts, career considerations, and favors to others ( IOM, 2009 ; Lesser et al., 2007 ). A political opinion, bias, or long-standing scientific viewpoint toward one position or another may influence the interpretation of findings, despite contradictory evidence ( Lesser et al., 2007 ). Similarly, white hat bias, or “bias leading to distortion of information in the service of what may be perceived to be righteous end,” also has the potential to influence conclusions ( Cope and Allison, 2010 ). An example of a conflict of commitment would be a principal investigator who does not have the time to perform all the duties for which he or she is responsible, such as securing funding, setting the overall direction for research in a lab, administrative responsibilities, and adequately supervising graduate students and postdocs. Secondary interests are rarely regulated, as they are considered a lesser incentive than financial interests.

Closer linkages between research and commercialization have introduced the possibility of financial gain from research more widely across the enterprise. This can pose challenges in terms of defining appropriate behavior and establishing guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest, and it can complicate collaborations among individual researchers and among organizations.

MAJOR CHANGES IN THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT SINCE 1992

Information technologies in research.

The continued exponential rise in the power of information and computing technologies has had a dramatic impact on research across many disciplines. These technologies have not only increased the speed and scope of research but have made it possible to conduct investigations that were not possible before. Information technology advances have enabled new forms of inquiry such as those based on numerical simulation of physical and biological systems and the analysis of massive datasets to detect and assess the nature of relationships that otherwise would go unseen.

The contrast in computing capabilities since the publication of Responsible Science is especially stark. In 1992, use of e-mail was less than a decade old, and the World Wide Web had just been invented and was not widely known. Three-and-a-half-inch floppy disks for data storage had replaced 5-1/4-inch disks just a few years before. People made telephone calls on landlines, used letters to communicate in writing, and circulated preprints via the postal system. For

young researchers, the circumstances in which research was conducted in 1992 are almost entirely foreign.

One effect of information technologies in many areas of research has been to introduce intermediate analyses of considerable complexity between the “raw” data gathered by sensors and observations, and produced by data-creating devices such as DNA sequencers, and the results of research. Re-creating the steps from data to results can be impossible without a detailed knowledge of data production and analyzing software, which sometimes is dependent on the particular computer on which the software runs. This intermediate analysis complicates the replication of scientific results and can create opportunities to manipulate analyses so as to achieve desired results, as well as undermine the ability of others to validate findings.

Digital technologies can pose other temptations for researchers to violate the standards of scientific practice. For example, the manipulation of images using image-processing software has caused many journals to implement spot checks and other procedures to guard against falsification. The inappropriate application of statistical packages can lead to greater confidence in the results than is warranted. Data-mining techniques can generate false positives and spurious correlations. In many fields, the development of standards governing the application of technology in the derivation of research results remains incomplete even as continuing technological advances raise new issues. In a recent paper, two prominent biologists wrote, “Although scientists have always comforted themselves with the thought that science is self-correcting, the immediacy and rapidity with which knowledge disseminates today means that incorrect information can have a profound impact before any corrective process can take place” ( Casadevall and Fang, 2012 ).

The widespread utilization of information technologies in research may also introduce new sources of unintentional error and irreproducibility of results. A survey of researchers who utilize species distribution modeling software found that only 8 percent had validated the software they had chosen against other methods, with higher percentages relying on recommendations from colleagues or the reputation of the developer ( Joppa et al., 2013 ). The latter approaches pose risks of incorrect implementation and error for the research being pursued, particularly if software is not shared or subjected to critical review. Issues surrounding irreproducibility and information technologies are discussed further in Chapter 5 .

Besides affecting the conduct of research, information and communication technologies have transformed the communication of scientific results and interactions among researchers. In theory, if not always in practice, all the data contributing to a research result can now be stored electronically and communicated to interested researchers. This capability has contributed to a growing movement for much more open forms of research in which researchers work collectively on problems, often through electronic media ( Nielsen, 2012 ). However, this trend toward greater transparency has created tasks and responsibilities for research-

ers and the research enterprise that did not previously exist, such as creating, documenting, storing, and sharing scientific software and immense databases and providing guidance in the use of these new digital objects. For example, software produced by scientists in the course of analyzing the data is often carried out as a collaborative online process. This digitization makes it easier than ever to perform very complex analyses that not only lead to new discoveries but create new problems of opacity for the peer review process. And while technology is making many aspects of research more efficient, it may also create new tasks and responsibilities that are burdensome for researchers and that they may find difficult or impossible to fulfill.

The movement toward open science has encouraged the efforts of citizen scientists who are eager to monitor, contribute to, and in some cases criticize scientific advances ( Stodden, 2010 ). Review of scientific results from outside a research discipline can provide another check on the accuracy of results, but it also can introduce questions about the validity of findings that are not adequately grounded in knowledge of the research. Moreover, it can alter the relationship between researchers and the public in ways that require new levels of effort and sophistication among researchers involved in public outreach.

Advances in information technology are transforming the research enterprise, discipline by discipline, by changing the sorts of questions that can be addressed and the methods used to address them. There may be more opportunities to fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize, but there are also more tools to uncover such behavior. Issues related to research reproducibility and related practices are covered in Chapter 5 .

The Globalization of Research

Because knowledge passes freely across national borders, scientific research has always been an international endeavor. But this internationalization has intensified over the past two decades. Nations have realized that they cannot expect to benefit from the global research enterprise without national research systems that can absorb and build on that knowledge. As a result, they have incorporated science and technology into national plans and have established goals for increased R&D investments. They also have encouraged their own students and researchers to travel to other countries to study and work and have welcomed researchers from other countries. At the same time, private-sector companies have increased their R&D investments in other countries to take advantage of local talent, gain access to local markets, and in some cases lower their costs for labor and facilities. These and other trends, including cheaper transportation, better communications, and the spread of English as the worldwide language of science, are producing a new golden age of global science.

Once again, the trend is apparent in the author lists of scientific and engineering articles. Between 1988 and 2013, the percentage of science and engineer-

ing articles published worldwide with coauthors from more than one country increased from 8 percent to 19 percent ( NSB, 2016 ). Also, some countries have dramatically increased their representation in the science and engineering literature. Between 1999 and 2013, the average number of science and engineering articles published by Chinese authors rose 18.9 percent annually, so that by 2013 China, with 18 percent of the total, was the world’s second-largest national producer of science and engineering articles. Authors from China also increased their share of internationally coauthored articles from 5 percent to 13 percent between 2000 and 2010. Other countries that dramatically expanded their number of articles published included South Korea, India, Taiwan, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Singapore, Portugal, Ireland, Thailand, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Tunisia, though some of these countries started from very low bases.

Another measure of the increasing internationalization of research is the number of foreign-born researchers studying and working in the United States. More than 193,000 foreign students were enrolled in U.S. graduate programs in science and engineering in 2013, and foreign-born U.S. science and engineering doctorate holders held 48 percent of postdoctoral positions in 2013 ( NSB, 2016 ). Science and engineering doctorate holders employed in U.S. colleges and universities who were born outside the United States increased from 12 percent in 1973 to nearly 27 percent in 2013. The United States remains the destination for the largest number of foreign students at the graduate and undergraduate levels, though its share of foreign students worldwide declined from 25 percent in 2000 to 19 percent in 2013.

Internationalization offers many benefits to the research enterprise. It can speed the advance of knowledge and permit projects that could not be done by any one country working alone. It increases cooperation across borders and can contribute to a reduction in tensions between nations. It enhances the use of resources by reducing duplication of effort and by combining disparate skills and viewpoints. The experiences students and researchers gain by working in other countries are irreplaceable.

But globalization also can complicate efforts to ensure that researchers adhere to responsible research practices ( Heitman and Petty, 2010 ). Education in the responsible conduct of research, while far from universal among U.S. science and engineering students, is nevertheless more extensive in the United States than in many other countries ( Heitman et al., 2007 ). Codes of responsible conduct differ from country to country, despite efforts to forge greater international consensus on basic principles ( ESF-ALLEA, 2011 ; IAC-IAP, 2012 ). In some countries with rapidly developing research systems, research misconduct and detrimental research practices appear to be more common than in countries with more established research systems ( Altman and Broad, 2005 ). Students from different countries may have quite different expectations regarding such issues as conflicts of interest, the deference to be accorded instructors and mentors, the treatment of research subjects, the handling of data, and the standards for authorship. For

example, one issue often noticed with foreign students in the United States is the different standards they apply to the use of ideas and phrases from others, which can lead to problems with plagiarism ( Heitman and Litewka, 2011 ).

As the sizes of individual national research enterprises grow and become more competitive, institutions and sponsors can experience more problems with research misconduct. Differences in national policy frameworks may constitute barriers to cross-border collaboration, but efforts are being made to harmonize or at least make these frameworks interoperable. Collaboration among researchers from different countries and cultures may expose differences in training, expectations, and values that affect behavior.

Relevance of Research Results to Policy and Political Debates

The rapid expansion of government support for scientific research in the decades after World War II was spurred by recognition of the importance of new knowledge in meeting human needs and solving problems. Over the past few decades, the link between scientific knowledge and issues in the broader society has become ever more apparent. Science is a critical factor in public discussions of and policy decisions concerning stem cells, food safety, climate change, nuclear proliferation, education, energy production, environmental influences on health, national competitiveness, and many other issues. Although all these topics cannot be covered here, this section will describe several of the key issues affecting science, policy, and the public and how they affect (and are affected by) research integrity.

To begin with, the federal government itself performs a significant amount of research through government laboratories, some of which is published. Federal agencies that perform research generally have policies and procedures in place to investigate allegations of research misconduct in their intramural programs (see NIH, 2012a , for an example of such policies and procedures, and see Chapter 7 for a more detailed discussion).

In addition, the Obama administration led an initiative on scientific integrity in the federal government starting in 2010 ( Holdren, 2010 ). Executive departments and agencies were instructed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop policies that address a range of issues, including promoting a culture of scientific integrity, ensuring the credibility of government research, fostering open communication, and preventing bias from affecting how science is used in decision making or in communications with the public. The exercise is largely complete, as agencies have developed and implemented policies in response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy guidance ( Grifo, 2013 ; OSTP, 2013 ).

Research also comes into play in debates and decisions over numerous contentious policy issues. Science is not the only factor in these discussions. Many considerations outside of science influence policy choices, such as personal and

political beliefs, lessons from experience, trial-and-error learning, and reasoning by analogy ( NRC, 2012b ). To contribute to public policy decisions, researchers must be able to separate their expertise as scientists from their views as advocates for particular public policy positions. Furthermore, they often contribute to these discussions outside the peer-reviewed literature, whether in public forums, blogs, or opinion articles in newspapers. According to the document Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise: A Policy Report ( IAC-IAP, 2012 ), “Researchers should resist speaking or writing with the authority of science or scholarship on complex, unresolved topics outside their areas of expertise. Researchers can risk their credibility by becoming advocates for public policy issues that can be resolved only with inputs from outside the research community.”

One example of an area where science, public debate, and policy making have been closely tied and contentious in recent years is climate science. This has raised challenges for researchers and the institutions through which scientists provide policy advice. According to a recent National Research Council report, “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. The environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks of climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts” ( NRC, 2011 ). The global climate is a highly complex system, and there is considerable uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of climate change, the effect of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, regional impacts, and many other issues. Effectively limiting greenhouse gas emissions presents economic and technological challenges and affects countries and industries differently, making policy changes by individual countries difficult. The development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its evolution over time illustrate the barriers to collective action on a global level. 3

In this environment of significant uncertainty on key scientific questions, difficult policy choices, the possibility of large impacts on powerful economic interests, and highly mobilized advocacy operations on all sides of the climate change issue, the climate science community has faced challenges in maintaining its credibility and public trust as it contributes its expertise. This experience might provide lessons on what researchers and scientific institutions need to do and what they need to avoid as highly charged issues arise with important scientific components. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, is an international body that undertakes periodic scientific assessments of climate science and constitutes the primary mechanism for scientists to inform policy makers at the global level. In November 2009 the unauthorized leak of e-mail conversations among climate researchers, a number of whom were heavily involved with the IPCC process,

3 See http://unfcc.int./meetings/warsaw_nov2013/meeting/7649.php .

appeared to reveal a number of questionable actions, including efforts to limit or deny access to data, failure to preserve raw data, and efforts to influence the peer review practices of journals. While subsequent investigations cleared the researchers of misconduct, the “Climategate” scandal and subsequent discovery of errors in IPCC’s most recent assessment raised questions about the quality and impartiality of the organization’s work. A 2010 study by the InterAcademy Council recommended a number of reforms in IPCC governance and management, review processes, methods for communicating uncertainty, and transparency ( IAC, 2010 ). One possible lesson from the recent climate change experience is that researchers, institutions, and fields whose work becomes relevant to controversial policy debates will need to consciously examine and upgrade their practices in areas such as data access and transparency ( NAS-NAE-IOM, 2009a ).

Recent high-profile international cases in which scientists have been criticized and even prosecuted based on their advisory activities include the statements of scientists in the aftermath of the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami in 2011, and the manslaughter convictions of seismologists whose statements were misconstrued by a government official, Bernardo De Bernardinis, to mean that there was no risk of danger immediately prior to an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, that killed more than 300 people ( Cartlidge, 2012 ; Jordan, 2013 ; Normile, 2012 ). An appeals court overturned the convictions 2 years later for the six seismologists involved, but not for De Bernardinis ( Cartlidge, 2014 ).

Other issues involving science and policy that raise questions about integrity seemingly appear in the media on a weekly basis. During 2012, controversy erupted over a University of Texas sociologist’s research findings that adult children of parents who had same-sex relationships fared worse than those raised by parents who had not had same-sex relationships; his research methodologies have been severely criticized, but an institutional inquiry cleared him of research misconduct ( Peterson, 2012 ). A federal appeals court upheld a South Dakota statute requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that they face an increased risk of suicide; despite extremely weak research evidence to support the statute, the court decided not to strike it down as an undue burden on abortion rights or on First Amendment grounds ( Planned Parenthood Minnesota, N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 2012 ). A French paper found that rats consuming genetically modified corn developed more tumors and died earlier than a control group, although food safety agencies have stated that the sample sizes were too small to reach a conclusion ( Butler, 2012 ). And a criminal investigation of a Texas state agency established to fund research on cancer prevention and treatment revealed that some awards were made without scientific review, which led to a wave of resignations among staff and oversight board members ( Berger and Ackerman, 2012 ). Needless to say, these cases underscore the salient role of scientific research in policy discussions.

For researchers, exercising responsibility in relations with society encompasses an increasing array of issues. For example, health and social science research in some communities, such as Native American tribes, requires adher-

ence to community rules for gaining approval. Research on people’s behavior on social networking websites raises questions about how human subject protections apply. Some emerging areas of research, such as crisis mapping and monitoring, raise human rights issues ( AAAS, 2012 ). Finally, researchers in the life sciences are being asked to exercise responsibility in the area of preventing the misuse of research and technology ( IAP, 2005 ).

Research findings are increasingly relevant to a broader range of policy-relevant questions, raising the magnitude of possible negative consequences of research misconduct and detrimental research practices. Researchers in a variety of fields are faced with more complicated choices with ethical dimensions. In this environment, maintaining rigorous peer review processes in scientific journals is a critical task. Decisions based on science suffer when non-peer-reviewed science, or science that was not well reviewed, is used.

TRENDS IN RESEARCH AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORSHIP

Decisions about the authorship of research publications are an important aspect of the responsible conduct of research. Although many individuals other than those who conceive of and implement a research project typically contribute to the production of successful research, authors are considered to be the person or persons who made a significant and substantial contribution to the production and presentation of the new knowledge being published. A number of the conventions and practices that constitute scientific authorship have been influenced by the trends discussed previously in this chapter. Tracing how trends in research such as globalization and technology are affecting authorship provides a useful window into how research is changing more broadly.

Authorship practices have evolved to support the development and distribution of new knowledge, engaging the powerful human motivation to discover and receive credit for discovery. Researchers are often evaluated, rightly or wrongly, by the quantity and quality of their work, as measured by the number of their publications, the prestige of the journals in which their publications appear, and how widely cited their publications are. Authorship also serves to establish accountability for published work. For example, authors are responsible for the veracity and reliability of the reported results, for ensuring that the research was performed according to relevant laws and regulations, for interacting with journal editors and staff during publication, and for defending the work following publication ( Smith and Williams-Jones, 2012 ).

Authorship practices vary between disciplines. Professional and journal standards and policies on authorship also vary. For example, in some disciplines the names of authors are listed alphabetically, while in other disciplines names are listed in descending order of contribution. In some disciplines, senior researchers are listed last and in others they are listed first.

At least three significant factors have changed authorship practices in recent

decades. First, the degree to which researchers make use of technology and the ways in which they use technology have changed dramatically. Researchers now frequently rely on computer software and hardware for many of the processes and analyses they undertake. They rely more on sophisticated software and computer models both in the analysis and in the presentation of results. The extent to which researchers understand how these tools affect data and results is a topic of concern in 21st-century research. Second, as a result of new information and communication technologies, especially the Internet, researchers engage in much more collaboration at a distance. This facilitates national and global collaboration and can lead to larger, more broadly scoped projects. Data gathering and analysis can be parsed out to different locations, with information potentially easily accessed and shared regardless of location. Researchers are able to electronically maintain frequent contact, have group meetings, and coauthor documents. Third, as a result of software and hardware developments, huge databases of information can be gathered and used, and researchers have access to and must deal with much more information than ever before. Consequently, researchers have to manage data in new ways and may be held to higher standards of knowing and understanding other research that has been done in their area.

These changes raise a variety of challenges to researchers and the research enterprise. For example, in part because of the increased scale of research, the number of authors listed on papers in some disciplines has grown considerably. Extreme examples include the 1993 Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen, or GUSTO, paper in the New England Journal of Medicine , which involved 976 authors ( GUSTO Investigators, 1993 ), and a 1997 Nature article on genome sequencing that had 151 authors ( Kunst et al., 1997 , from Smith and Williams-Jones, 2012 ). The recent joint paper from the two teams collaborating on the mass estimate of the Higgs boson particle lists more than 5,000 authors ( Castelvecchi, 2015 ). The original papers reporting the discovery of the Higgs boson had approximately 3,000 authors each ( Hornyak, 2012 ). How can the primary author or authors be responsible for the work of a hundred individual researchers who are geographically dispersed and come from a wide range of disciplines? When an error is found or an accusation of wrongdoing is made, the problem has to be traced back to the component of the research that is called into question. In the process of tracing back the possible wrongdoing, the primary author or authors, while accountable, may not understand the area or have had much control over the researchers involved. The primary author or authors may be accountable but not blameworthy. These challenges are complicated by disciplinary differences in authorship conventions.

Chapter 7 explores the challenges to research integrity arising in the area of authorship, and Chapter 8 considers alternatives for addressing them.

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge.

The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated.

Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Research Problem and Questions

• First Online: 20 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Habeeb Adewale Ajimotokan 2  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ((BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES))

992 Accesses

The objectives of this chapter are to

Describe the research problem and questions;

Identify appropriate research problems and questions;

Specify the different sources for research problems;

Enumerate the criteria for selecting a problem for research; and

Describe the statement of problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques . New Age International (P) Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Walliman, N. (2011). Research methods: The basics . Routledge—Taylor and Francis Group.

Pandey, P., & Pandey, M. M. (2015). Research methodology: Methods and techniques . Bridge Center.

Walliman, N. (2011). Your research project: Designing and planning your work . Sage Publications Ltd.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Ajimotokan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ajimotokan, H.A. (2023). Research Problem and Questions. In: Research Techniques. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13109-7_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13109-7_2

Published : 20 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-13108-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-13109-7

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: The Research Problem/Question

• Purpose of Guide
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• The Research Problem/Question
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Is it Peer-Reviewed?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism [linked guide]
• Annotated Bibliography
• Grading Someone Else's Paper

A research problem is a definite or clear expression [statement] about an area of concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in scholarly literature, in theory, or within existing practice that points to a need for meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation. A research problem does not state how to do something, offer a vague or broad proposition, or present a value question.

Bryman, Alan. “The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10 (2007): 5-20; Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, editors. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 105-117.

Importance of...

The purpose of a problem statement is to:

• Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied . The reader is oriented to the significance of the study.
• Anchors the research questions, hypotheses, or assumptions to follow . It offers a concise statement about the purpose of your paper.
• Place the topic into a particular context that defines the parameters of what is to be investigated.
• Provide the framework for reporting the results and indicates what is probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings will present this information.

In the social sciences, the research problem establishes the means by which you must answer the "So What?" question. This question refers to a research problem surviving the relevancy test [the quality of a measurement procedure that provides repeatability and accuracy]. Note that answering the "So What?" question requires a commitment on your part to not only show that you have reviewed the literature, but that you have thoroughly considered its significance and its implications applied to obtaining new knowledge or understanding.

To survive the "So What" question, problem statements should possess the following attributes:

• Clarity and precision [a well-written statement does not make sweeping generalizations and irresponsible pronouncements; it also does include unspecific determinates like "very" or "giant"],
• Demonstrate a researchable topic or issue [i.e., feasibility of conducting the study is based upon access to information that can be effectively acquired, gathered, interpreted, synthesized, and understood],
• Identification of what would be studied, while avoiding the use of value-laden words and terms,
• Identification of an overarching question or small set of questions accompanied by key factors or variables,
• Identification of key concepts and terms,
• Articulation of the study's boundaries or parameters or limitations,
• Some generalizability in regards to applicability and bringing results into general use,
• Conveyance of the study's importance, benefits, and justification [i.e., regardless of the type of research, it is important to demonstrate that the research is not trivial],
• Does not have unnecessary jargon or overly complex sentence constructions; and,
• Conveyance of more than the mere gathering of descriptive data providing only a snapshot of the issue or phenomenon under investigation.

Bryman, Alan. “The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10 (2007): 5-20; Castellanos, Susie. Critical Writing and Thinking . The Writing Center. Dean of the College. Brown University; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); Thesis and Purpose Statements . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.  

Structure and Writing Style

 Sources of Problems for Investigation

The identification of a problem to study can be challenging, not because there's a lack of issues that could be investigated, but due to the challenge of formulating an academically relevant and researchable problem which is unique and does not simply duplicate the work of others. To facilitate how you might select a problem from which to build a research study, consider these sources of inspiration:

Deductions from Theory This relates to deductions made from social philosophy or generalizations embodied in life and in society that the researcher is familiar with. These deductions from human behavior are then placed within an empirical frame of reference through research. From a theory, the researcher can formulate a research problem or hypothesis stating the expected findings in certain empirical situations. The research asks the question: “What relationship between variables will be observed if theory aptly summarizes the state of affairs?” One can then design and carry out a systematic investigation to assess whether empirical data confirm or reject the hypothesis, and hence, the theory.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives Identifying a problem that forms the basis for a research study can come from academic movements and scholarship originating in disciplines outside of your primary area of study. This can be an intellectually stimulating exercise. A review of pertinent literature should include examining research from related disciplines that can reveal new avenues of exploration and analysis. An interdisciplinary approach to selecting a research problem offers an opportunity to construct a more comprehensive understanding of a very complex issue that any single discipline may be able to provide.

Interviewing Practitioners The identification of research problems about particular topics can arise from formal interviews or informal discussions with practitioners who provide insight into new directions for future research and how to make research findings more relevant to practice. Discussions with experts in the field, such as, teachers, social workers, health care providers, lawyers, business leaders, etc., offers the chance to identify practical, “real world” problems that may be understudied or ignored within academic circles. This approach also provides some practical knowledge which may help in the process of designing and conducting your study.

Personal Experience Don't undervalue your everyday experiences or encounters as worthwhile problems for investigation. Think critically about your own experiences and/or frustrations with an issue facing society, your community, your neighborhood, your family, or your personal life. This can be derived, for example, from deliberate observations of certain relationships for which there is no clear explanation or witnessing an event that appears harmful to a person or group or that is out of the ordinary.

Relevant Literature The selection of a research problem can be derived from a thorough review of pertinent research associated with your overall area of interest. This may reveal where gaps exist in understanding a topic or where an issue has been understudied. Research may be conducted to: 1) fill such gaps in knowledge; 2) evaluate if the methodologies employed in prior studies can be adapted to solve other problems; or, 3) determine if a similar study could be conducted in a different subject area or applied in a different context or to different study sample [i.e., different setting or different group of people].Also, authors frequently conclude their studies by noting implications for further research; read the conclusion of pertinent studies because statements about further research can be a valuable source for identifying new problems to investigate. The fact that a researcher has identified a topic worthy of further exploration validates the fact it is worth pursuing.

What Makes a Good Research Statement?

A good problem statement begins by introducing the broad area in which your research is centered, gradually leading the reader to the more specific issues you are investigating. The statement need not be lengthy, but a good research problem should incorporate the following features:

1.  Compelling Topic The problem chosen should be one that motivates you to address it but simple curiosity is not a good enough reason to pursue a research study because this does not indicate significance. The problem that you choose to explore must be important to you, but it must also be viewed as important by your readers and to a the larger academic and/or social community that could be impacted by the results of your study. 2.  Supports Multiple Perspectives The problem must be phrased in a way that avoids dichotomies and instead supports the generation and exploration of multiple perspectives. A general rule of thumb in the social sciences is that a good research problem is one that would generate a variety of viewpoints from a composite audience made up of reasonable people. 3.  Researchability This isn't a real word but it represents an important aspect of creating a good research statement. It seems a bit obvious, but you don't want to find yourself in the midst of investigating a complex research project and realize that you don't have enough prior research to draw from for your analysis. There's nothing inherently wrong with original research, but you must choose research problems that can be supported, in some way, by the resources available to you. If you are not sure if something is researchable, don't assume that it isn't if you don't find information right away--seek help from a librarian !

NOTE:   Do not confuse a research problem with a research topic. A topic is something to read and obtain information about, whereas a problem is something to be solved or framed as a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution, or explained as a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation. In short, a research topic is something to be understood; a research problem is something that needs to be investigated.

Asking Analytical Questions about the Research Problem

Research problems in the social and behavioral sciences are often analyzed around critical questions that must be investigated. These questions can be explicitly listed in the introduction [i.e., "This study addresses three research questions about women's psychological recovery from domestic abuse in multi-generational home settings..."], or, the questions are implied in the text as specific areas of study related to the research problem. Explicitly listing your research questions at the end of your introduction can help in designing a clear roadmap of what you plan to address in your study, whereas, implicitly integrating them into the text of the introduction allows you to create a more compelling narrative around the key issues under investigation. Either approach is appropriate.

The number of questions you attempt to address should be based on the complexity of the problem you are investigating and what areas of inquiry you find most critical to study. Practical considerations, such as, the length of the paper you are writing or the availability of resources to analyze the issue can also factor in how many questions to ask. In general, however, there should be no more than four research questions underpinning a single research problem.

Given this, well-developed analytical questions can focus on any of the following:

• Highlights a genuine dilemma, area of ambiguity, or point of confusion about a topic open to interpretation by your readers;
• Yields an answer that is unexpected and not obvious rather than inevitable and self-evident;
• Provokes meaningful thought or discussion;
• Raises the visibility of the key ideas or concepts that may be understudied or hidden;
• Suggests the need for complex analysis or argument rather than a basic description or summary; and,
• Offers a specific path of inquiry that avoids eliciting generalizations about the problem.

NOTE:   Questions of how and why concerning a research problem often require more analysis than questions about who, what, where, and when. You should still ask yourself these latter questions, however. Thinking introspectively about the who, what, where, and when of a research problem can help ensure that you have thoroughly considered all aspects of the problem under investigation and help define the scope of the study in relation to the problem.

Mistakes to Avoid

Beware of circular reasoning! Do not state that the research problem as simply the absence of the thing you are suggesting. For example, if you propose the following, "The problem in this community is that there is no hospital," this only leads to a research problem where:

• The need is for a hospital
• The objective is to create a hospital
• The method is to plan for building a hospital, and
• The evaluation is to measure if there is a hospital or not.

This is an example of a research problem that fails the "So What?" test . In this example, the problem does not reveal the relevance of why you are investigating the fact there is no hospital in the community [e.g., there's a hospital in the community ten miles away]; it does not elucidate the significance of why one should study the fact there is no hospital in the community [e.g., that hospital in the community ten miles away has no emergency room]; the research problem does not offer an intellectual pathway towards adding new knowledge or clarifying prior knowledge [e.g., the county in which there is no hospital already conducted a study about the need for a hospital]; and, the problem does not offer meaningful outcomes that lead to recommendations that can be generalized for other situations or that could suggest areas for further research [e.g., the challenges of building a new hospital serves as a case study for other communities].

Alvesson, Mats and Jörgen Sandberg. “Generating Research Questions Through Problematization.” Academy of Management Review 36 (April 2011): 247-271 ; Choosing and Refining Topics . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova. "Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem." Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); How to Write a Research Question . The Writing Center. George Mason University; Invention: Developing a Thesis Statement . The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Problem Statements PowerPoint Presentation . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Procter, Margaret. Using Thesis Statements . University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Trochim, William M.K. Problem Formulation . Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Thesis and Purpose Statements . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Walk, Kerry. Asking an Analytical Question . [Class handout or worksheet]. Princeton University; White, Patrick. Developing Research Questions: A Guide for Social Scientists . New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2009.

• << Previous: Broadening a Topic Idea
• Next: Preparing to Write >>
• Last Updated: Sep 8, 2023 12:19 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.txstate.edu/socialscienceresearch

Announcements

Updates on campus events, policies, construction and more.

• Dean’s 2023 State of the School address available online
• Notice of data security incident
• COVID-19: Medical Campus updates

close  

Information for Our Community

Whether you are part of our community or are interested in joining us, we welcome you to Washington University School of Medicine.

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Alumni & Friends
• Administrators
• Researchers
• Job Seekers

Risk of death from COVID-19 lessens, but infection still can cause issues 3 years later

Study also shows that patients hospitalized within 30 days after infection face 29% higher death risk in 3rd year compared with those not infected

by Kristina Sauerwein • May 30, 2024

New findings on long COVID by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care system reveal that COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized within the first 30 days after infection face a 29% higher risk of death in the third year post-infection compared with people who have not had the virus. However, the three-year death risk marks a significant decline compared with such risk at previous time points post-infection. The study also shows that even people with mild COVID-19 still experienced new health problems related to the infection three years later.

New findings on long COVID — long-term effects on health experienced by many who have had COVID-19 — present a good-news, bad-news situation, according to a study at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care system.

The bad news: COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized within the first 30 days after infection face a 29% higher risk of death in the third year compared with people who have not had the virus. However, the three-year death risk still marks a significant decline compared with such risk at the one- and two-year marks post-infection. The findings also show that even people with mild COVID-19 were still experiencing new health problems related to the infection three years later.

The good news: The increased risk of death diminishes significantly one year after a SARS-CoV-2 infection among people who were not hospitalized for the virus. This demographic accounts for most people who have had COVID-19.

The new research, published May 30 in Nature Medicine, tracked the virus’s health effects in people three years after being infected with the original strain of COVID-19 in 2020. That year, about 20 million people tested positive for the virus in the U.S. The new study assessed the risk of death and 80 adverse health conditions in people three years after being diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We aren’t sure why the virus’s effects linger for so long,” said senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a Washington University clinical epidemiologist and a global leader in long COVID research. “Possibly it has to do with viral persistence, chronic inflammation, immune dysfunction or all the above. We tend to think of infections as mostly short-term illnesses with health effects that manifest around the time of infection. Our data challenges this notion. I feel COVID-19 continues to teach us — and this is an important new lesson — that a brief, seemingly innocuous or benign encounter with the virus can still lead to health problems years later.”

Up to 10% of people infected with the virus experience long COVID, according to federal data.

Al-Aly’s prior research has documented COVID-19’s damage to nearly every human organ, contributing to diseases and conditions affecting the lungs, heart, brain, and the body’s blood, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal (GI) systems.

Such studies with longer follow-up are limited, said Al-Aly, a nephrologist who treats patients at the Washington University-affiliated John J. Cochran Veterans Hospital in midtown St. Louis. “Addressing this knowledge gap is critical to enhance our understanding of long COVID and will help inform care for people suffering from long COVID.”

Al-Aly and his team analyzed millions of de-identified medical records in a database maintained by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the nation’s largest integrated health-care system. The study included more than 114,000 veterans with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization; more than 20,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and 5.2 million veterans with no COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients were enrolled in the study from March 1, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2020, and followed for at least three years, until Dec. 31, 2023. Patients included people of diverse ages, races and sexes; statistical modeling ensured parity in representation.

In the third year after infection, COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalized experienced a 34% elevated health risk across all organ systems compared with people who did not have COVID. That number is down from a 182% increased risk one year after a COVID infection and a 57% risk two years after.

Among nonhospitalized patients, researchers found a 5% increased risk in suffering from long COVID in the third year after infection. This translates into 41 more health problems per 1,000 persons – a small but not trivial burden. The long-term health effects in the third year primarily affected the GI, pulmonary and neurological systems. By comparison, the risk was increased by 23% one year after infection and increased by 16% two years after.

In the analysis, researchers also measured and compared the number of healthy life-years lost due to COVID-19. They found that among the nonhospitalized, at three years after infection, COVID-19 had contributed to 10 lost years of healthy life per 1,000 persons. By comparison, three years post-infection, those hospitalized for COVID-19 had experienced 90 lost years of healthy life per 1,000 persons.

For context, in the U.S., heart disease and cancer each cause about 50 lost years of healthy life per 1,000 persons, while stroke contributes to 10 lost years of healthy life per 1,000 persons.

“That a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to new health problems three years down the road is a sobering finding,” said Al-Aly, who is also director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and head of the research and development service. “The problem is even worse for people with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is very concerning that the burden of disease among hospitalized individuals is astronomically higher.”

“COVID-19 is a serious threat to the long-term health and well-being of people and it should not be trivialized,” he said.

The extended trajectory for long COVID may change as researchers incorporate data from years beyond 2020. At that time, vaccines and antivirals had not been developed. Similarly, Al-Aly’s analysis does not consider subsequent variants such as omicron or delta.

“Even three years out, you might have forgotten about COVID-19, but COVID hasn’t forgotten about you,” Al-Aly said. “People might think they’re out of the woods, because they had the virus and did not experience health problems. But three years after infection, the virus could still be wreaking havoc and causing disease or illness in the gut, lungs or brain.”

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Editors' Picks

May 17, 2024

Response to updated vaccine is shaped by earlier vaccines yet generates broadly neutralizing antibodies.

News Release

April 19, 2024

Gift from Andy Newman supports world-changing research on the gut microbiome.

Medical Campus & Community, News Release

April 12, 2024

WashU Medicine, BJC HealthCare timeline focuses on shared racial history, desegregation.

Medical Campus & Community

More From Forbes

Women's health pac launches: a turning point for research and care.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Women's healthcare is on the cusp of becoming a national priority.

The creation of the bipartisan Women's Health PAC signifies a critical juncture in the movement to elevate women's health on the national political stage. Historically, this field has been underfunded and stigmatized, leading to significant knowledge gaps and disparities in healthcare. However, the landscape is changing positively with increased government funding, targeted initiatives, and a growing interest from venture capitalists.

Despite this progress, significant challenges persist. The PAC's mission is to solidify women's health as a national priority, ensuring adequate funding for every stage in the development of treatments. This momentum, fueled by recent government actions and heightened venture capital involvement, promises to drive substantial progress in women's health research and outcomes.

The ultimate goal is to achieve comprehensive health care that addresses the unique needs of all women while unlocking a potential $1 trillion annual economic opportunity.

Women's Health PAC Fights For Parity In Funding

A group of women’s health leaders recently launched the first-ever bipartisan Women's Health PAC, dedicated to making women’s health a sustained national political priority . Candace McDonald, Jodi Neuhauser, and Liz Powell co-founded the group.

Early-stage women's health research is risky but can be rewarding. Government funding bridges the gap, allowing researchers to explore promising yet uncertain avenues with high breakthrough potential. Investors often demand preliminary data before funding, creating a catch-22.

As Russia s Armored Vehicles Get Worse Ukraine s American Made M 2s Destroy Them Faster

Tucupita marcano lost millions in future earnings by betting on mlb, the nitty-gritty about that latest risk-of-ai letter and a vaunted call for a right to forewarn.

While women represent more than half the population, the National Institute of Health allocated only $4,466 million—10.8% —of its budget to women's health research. Historically underfunded, women's health research suffers from knowledge gaps and healthcare disparities. U.S. government funding must target neglected areas, ensuring that research addresses the health needs of all populations, including marginalized and underserved groups.

Most funding decision-makers are men. By and large, they need to become more familiar with women's health challenges. “I spend a lot of time explaining things, which is very challenging,” said Elizabeth Garner, OB/GYN and Gynecologic Oncologist. Seventeen years ago, she left clinical medicine and entered the pharmaceutical industry. She is currently the chief scientific officer at Ferring Pharmaceuticals. “We need more education!”

Stigma shrouds women's health, from menstruation and menopause that only affect women to diseases that are more likely to affect women, such as autoimmune disorders and Alzheimer’s, and to diseases like cardiovascular that affect women differently than men. The taboos surrounding women’s health discourage open dialogue, making these issues seem less important and hindering research funding.

Another issue: Joanna Strober, CEO and founder of Midi Health, points out that estrogen is connected to the prevention of Alzheimer's, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and osteopenia. The company provides virtual care to women 35 to 65. Due to its status as a generic drug, estrogen offers less financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to investigate its potential benefits for these diseases. Testosterone plays a role in women’s bone health, libido, and brain health. It, too, is a generic drug with lower profit margins than patented drugs. There is no research investigating how estrogen and testosterone can be used to improve women’s health as they age.

Government grants act as seed money, enabling researchers to gather crucial data, develop prototypes, and demonstrate proof of concept, paving the way for later-stage private and philanthropic investment.

Women are underrepresented in all stages of the product development continuum, including R&D, data collection, clinical trials, founding companies, and being VCs. The result is that diseases impacting women receive less federal research funding than those affecting men.

The Women's Health PAC will ensure politicians remain focused on women's health by race and ethnicity. It will organize grassroots events, spearhead awareness marketing campaigns, provide financial support to bipartisan candidates supporting women’s health, leverage political and financial influence, and continuously focus on women’s health.

Closing Women’s Health Gap Creates $1 Trillion Opportunity

Momentum is building to address women’s health research disparity. The Biden administration has launched several initiatives to accelerate growth:

• The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) Sprint for Women's Health was announced on February 21, 2024. This initiative commits $100 million to transformative research and development in women's health.
• Twenty new actions and commitments by federal agencies were announced on March 18, 2024. The agencies included the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Science Foundation. Notably, this includes the launch of a new NIH-wide initiative that will allocate $200 million in fiscal year 2025 for interdisciplinary women’s health research.
• This effort is a foundational step towards the transformative central $12 billion Fund on Women’s Health, which the President urged Congress to invest in.

On May 9, 2024, seventeen bipartisan senators and Halle Berry announced the Advancing Menopause Care and Mid-Life Women’s Health Act , a $275 million bill to boost federal research, physician training, and public awareness about menopause.

Recognition of women's unique healthcare needs and the potential for innovation in this space are growing. Reports showing the opportunity have fueled the push for more inclusive healthcare.

• Investing $300 million in women's health research could yield a $13 billion economic return —43 fold increase. (Women’s Health Access Matters conducted by the RAND Corporation)

The Case To Fund Women’s Health Research

• Women globally spend significantly more of their lives in poor health compared to men. Closing this gap could improve millions of women's lives and unlock a massive economic opportunity of $1 trillion annually by 2040. (McKinsey)
• There was a 314% increase in VC investment in women’s health since 2018. Innovation in Women’s Health 2023 is optimistic that the sector is poised for significantly more growth because of the growing recognition of women's unique healthcare needs and the potential for innovation in this space (PitchBook and SVB). No matter what health condition a company is focused on, Christina K. Isacson, Ph.D., partner at Lightstone Ventures, a VC firm that invests in medical breakthroughs, asks founders how they include gender in preclinical and clinical work, and product profiles. The report notes that over 76% of VC-backed women’s health companies have at least one female co-founder, a significantly higher proportion than other sectors. Female-founded companies tend to be undervalued and represent an opportunity for superior returns. Significant successes by women’s health companies have demonstrated the sector's investment potential. Midi Health, a virtual company focused on women 35 to 65, has raised $100 million. Raising the first and second rounds was difficult, commented Strober. The company relied on funding from small women-owned venture funds. The third round of funding came from larger VCs, but the lead investors were women.
• A PitchBook analysis of femtech—defined as a range of health software and tech-enabled products that cater to female biological needs and a subsector of women’s health—reveals spectacular growth for female-founded companies. From 2013 to 2023, funding grew:
• 5829% to $450 million for solely female-founded companies.
• 2633% to $713.8 million for companies with at least one female founder.
• 114% to $124.6 million for solely male-founded companies.

“I encourage male founders to be open-minded to the opportunities that gender-based medicine presents,” said Isacson.

Launching the bipartisan Women's Health PAC marks a pivotal moment in the fight to prioritize women's health in national political discourse. Despite historical underfunding and a persistent stigma, the landscape for women's health research is transforming. More government money, focused research efforts, and a rise in investor enthusiasm suggest exciting medical breakthroughs are on the horizon. Recognizing the economic benefits and dismantling the barriers to inclusive research pave the way for a future where all women can access healthcare that addresses their unique needs.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Communication
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Browse issues

Cover image

Volume 74, Issue 3, June 2024

Original articles, how shared ties and journalistic cultures shape global news coverage of disruptive media events: the case of the 9/11 terror attacks.

• View article
• Supplementary data

Pornography, identification, alcohol, and condomless sex

The professional backstaging of diversity in journalism, empowering social media users: nudge toward self-engaged verification for improved truth and sharing discernment, the concept of normalization in the production of lgbtiq+ media imaginaries: the scriptwriters’ conceptions, testing relational turbulence theory in daily life using dynamic structural equation modeling, a sonic space of our own three authors explore the relationship between sound, industry practices, and collective identity, metaphors of journalism, post-authoritarianism, and the captured liberal system: new scholarship from latin america, email alerts.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2466
• Print ISSN 0021-9916
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.