Biomedical Research: The Research Problem Matters

Document Type : Review Article(s)

Authors

1 Micronutrient Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Disorders, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Nutrition and Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Disorders, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Endocrine Physiology Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Molecular Biology, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

10.34172/ahj.1542

Abstract

Research, a systematic inquiry, is the bridge that connects existing knowledge to the research question in an objective and testable manner, ultimately solving problems. Just as the foundation is crucial to a building’s construction, the research problem is the initial and the most vital step in scientific research. Therefore, problem identification is a task of utmost importance and challenge for researchers prior to the design and execution of research. In this paper, we delve into the concept of the research problem, a term distinct from the research topic and question, its potential sources, and the common approaches for its identification. A difficulty or deficiency that needs to be overcome, a desirable condition that needs improvement, a gap in existing knowledge or a conflicting issue, a theory that requires meaningful understanding, a neglected area of knowledge, and an idea that requires validation or confirmation or application are all examples of the research problem. Known problems, existing literature, or serendipitous ideas may serve as potential sources of a research problem. Research problems are often constructed from the literature by structuring intertextual coherence or problematization strategies. Overall, the most common way of defining research problems is gap-spotting.

Keywords

References

1. Aliotta G, De Angelis G, De Santo NG, Sepe J, Stingo 
V. The history of science: defending epistemology with 
new technologies. Am J Nephrol. 1999;19(2):340-2. doi: 
10.1159/000013472.
2. Layton ET Jr. American ideologies of science and engineering. 
Technol Cult. 1976;17(4):688-701.
3. Murakami YP. Scientization of science. Annals of the Japan 
Association for Philosophy of Science. 1993;8(3):175-85. doi: 
10.4288/jafpos1956.8.175.
4. Ross S. Scientist: the story of a word. Ann Sci. 1962;18(2):65-
85. doi: 10.1080/00033796200202722.
5. Feynman RP. Cargo cult science. Eng Sci. 1974;37(7):10-3.
6. Winit-Watjana W. Research philosophy in pharmacy practice: 
necessity and relevance. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016;24(6):428-
36. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12281.
7. Song DW. What is research? WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. 
2021;20(4):407-11. doi: 10.1007/s13437-021-00256-w.
8. Thabane L, Thomas T, Ye C, Paul J. Posing the research 
question: not so simple. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56(1):71-9. doi:                                                                                                     10.1007/s12630-008-9007-4.
9. Ellis TJ, Levy Y. Framework of problem-based research: 
a guide for novice researchers on the development of a 
research-worthy problem. Informing Science. 2008;11:17-33.
10. Eidlin F. The method of problems versus the method of 
topics. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2011;44(4):758-61. doi: 10.1017/
s1049096511001260.
11. Hattiangadi JN. The structure of problems, (part I). Philos Soc 
Sci. 1978;8(4):345-65. doi: 10.1177/004839317800800402.
12. Takayoshi P, Tomlinson E, Castillo J. The construction of 
research problems and methods. In: Powell KM, Takayoshi 
P, eds. Practicing Research in Writing Studies: Reflexive and 
Ethically Responsible Research. New York, NY: Hampton 
Press; 2012. p. 97-121.
13. Hurley J. Effective scientific research: changing explanatory 
frameworks. In: Scientific Research Effectiveness: The 
Organisational Dimension. 2003 Apr 30 (pp. 11-35). 
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2023. p. 11-35.
14. Leedy PD, Ormrod JE. Practical Research. 12th ed. New York: 
Macmillan, Pearson; 2021.
15. Bahcekapili E, Bahcekapili T, Fis Erümit S, Göktas Y, Sözbilir 
M. The factors affecting definition of research problems in 
educational technology researches. Educ Sci Theory Pract. 
2013;13(4):2330-5.
16. Sandberg J, Alvesson M. Ways of constructing research 
questions: gap-spotting or problematization? Organization. 
2010;18(1):23-44. doi: 10.1177/1350508410372151.
17. Connaway LS, Powell RR. Basic Research Methods for 
Librarians. 5th ed. California: ABC-CLIO; 2010.
18. Locke K, Golden-Biddle K. Constructing opportunities 
for contribution: structuring intertextual coherence and 
“problematizing” in organizational studies. Acad Manag J. 
1997;40(5):1023-62. doi: 10.5465/256926.
19. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL. Linking research questions 
to mixed methods data analysis procedures. Qual Rep. 
2006;11(3):474-98.
20. Tully MP. Research: articulating questions, generating 
hypotheses, and choosing study designs. Can J Hosp Pharm. 
2014;67(1):31-4. doi: 10.4212/cjhp.v67i1.1320.
21. Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: 
a critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J 
Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2010;31(1):47-50. doi: 10.4103/0253-
7184.69003.
22. Chow CW, Harrison PD. Identifying meaningful and 
significant topics for research and publication: a sharing of 
experiences and insights by ‘influential’ accounting authors. 
J Account Educ. 2002;20(3):183-203. doi: 10.1016/s0748-
5751(02)00008-8.
23. Koshland DE Jr. Philosophy of science. The Cha-Cha-Cha 
Theory of Scientific Discovery. Science. 2007;317(5839):761-
2. doi: 10.1126/science.1147166.
24. Vandenbroucke JP, Pearce N. From ideas to studies: how 
to get ideas and sharpen them into research questions. Clin 
Epidemiol. 2018;10:253-64. doi: 10.2147/clep.S142940.
25. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. Scientific 
publishing in biomedicine: information literacy. Int J 
Endocrinol Metab. 2022;20(3):e128701. doi: 10.5812/ijem128701.
26. Ghasemi A, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Bahadoran Z. Scientific 
publishing in biomedicine: a brief history of scientific journals. 
Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2023;21(1):e131812. doi: 10.5812/
ijem-131812.
27. Bouzas C, Bibiloni MDM, Tur JA. Relationship between body 
image and body weight control in overweight≥55-year-old 
adults: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 
2019;16(9):1622. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16091622.
28. Bredt DS, Snyder SH. Isolation of nitric oxide synthetase, a 
calmodulin-requiring enzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 
1990;87(2):682-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.2.682.
29. Ghasemi A, Kashfi K. Nitric oxide: a brief history of 
discovery and timeline of its research: In: Ghasemi A, Kashfi 
K, Bahadoran Z, eds. The Role of Nitric Oxide in Type 2 
Diabetes. Singapore: Bentham Science Publishers; 2022. p. 
27-38.
30. Kramer CK, Zinman B, Retnakaran R. Short-term intensive 
insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review 
and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013;1(1):28-
34. doi: 10.1016/s2213-8587(13)70006-8.
31. Ghasemi A. Quantitative aspects of nitric oxide production 
from nitrate and nitrite. EXCLI J. 2022;21:470-86. doi: 
10.17179/excli2022-4727.
32. Lawson AE. The generality of hypothetico-deductive 
reasoning: making scientific thinking explicit. Am Biol Teach. 
2000;62(7):482-95. doi: 10.2307/4450956
Addiction & Health
Volume 17
Pages 1-4

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics