Most academic research follows a predictable pattern: it identifies a “gap” in existing theories and tries to fill it. This approach—known as gap-spotting—dominates how researchers formulate their questions.
But is it the best way to generate groundbreaking ideas?
According to Alvesson and Sandberg (2013), the answer is no.
While gap-spotting strengthens existing frameworks, it also limits creativity and reinforces dominant perspectives instead of questioning them. The result? Incremental knowledge, rather than radical new insights.
So what is the alternative?
Problematization.
What Is Problematization?
Instead of filling gaps, problematization challenges the assumptions that form the foundation of existing theories. This method encourages researchers to:
- Question dominant perspectives.
- Develop more innovative and critical research questions.
- Break free from traditional thinking and propose new frameworks.
If you seek to shake up conventional research and introduce bold new ideas, problematization is the tool you need.
The Six Steps of Problematization
Alvesson and Sandberg’s method follows a structured six-step process that helps researchers challenge assumptions and develop more insightful questions.
Step 1: Identify the Research Domain
Before questioning assumptions, you must clearly define the field in which your research takes place.
Ask yourself:
- What is the central topic of study?
- What theories dominate this field?
- What perspectives are widely accepted?
For example, in leadership studies, most research focuses on individual leaders and their impact. But what if leadership were examined as a collective process instead?
Step 2: Identify and Make Explicit the Assumptions
Every academic field has implicit assumptions—ideas that are taken for granted without question. Problematization begins by making these assumptions visible.
Common types of assumptions include:
- In-house assumptions: Beliefs held within a specific theory or school of thought. (Example: Leadership is primarily about individual charisma.)
- Root metaphor assumptions: Deep beliefs shaping research perspectives, such as viewing organizations as machines.
- Paradigm assumptions: Broad ideas dominating a discipline, such as the notion in economics that people are always rational actors.
- Ideological assumptions: Political or value-driven beliefs, like the idea that economic growth is inherently positive.
- Field assumptions: Shared beliefs that shape an entire academic area, such as the emphasis on cognition over social structures in psychology.
Ask yourself:
- What assumptions do most researchers in this field share?
- What does the dominant theory take for granted?
- Are any perspectives missing or ignored?
Step 3: Evaluate and Challenge These Assumptions
Once key assumptions are identified, critically evaluate them. The goal is to uncover contradictions, oversimplifications, or outdated reasoning.
Ways to challenge assumptions include:
- Historical analysis: How have these assumptions changed over time?
- Alternative theories: Are there competing frameworks that offer different perspectives?
- Empirical evidence: Does real-world data support or contradict the prevailing assumptions?
Ask yourself:
- Are these assumptions logically consistent?
- What contradictions or tensions exist in current research?
- Can alternative explanations offer better understanding?
Step 4: Develop Alternative Assumptions
Problematization is not merely about criticizing existing frameworks; it also requires proposing alternative perspectives.
Strategies include:
- Reversing the assumption: What if the opposite were true?
- Expanding the framework: Are important dimensions being overlooked?
- Integrating perspectives: Can multiple theories be combined for a more comprehensive view?
Ask yourself:
- What alternative ways of thinking exist?
- How does reframing the problem change the possible solutions?
- What perspectives have been excluded from dominant theories?
Step 5: Consider the Theoretical and Empirical Implications
Introducing new assumptions changes how we understand the research domain. This step involves exploring the consequences of such changes.
Ask yourself:
- How does this shift affect our understanding of the topic?
- What new areas of study does it open up?
- What are the practical implications?
For example, viewing leadership as a collective process rather than an individual trait could transform how organizations train and select leaders.
Step 6: Reformulate Research Questions
Finally, use your new assumptions to formulate fresh, more critical research questions. These questions should challenge dominant theories rather than reinforce them.
Examples:
- Instead of asking, “How does leadership affect employee motivation?”, ask, “What alternative ways exist to organize decision-making beyond leadership hierarchies?”
- Instead of asking, “What policies reduce unemployment?”, ask, “How does the definition of ’employment’ shape policy decisions?”
Ask yourself:
- What new insights can be gained by reframing the problem?
- How do these new questions challenge existing knowledge?
- What practical changes might result?
Why Problematization Is Powerful
Using problematization instead of gap-spotting leads to more original, impactful research because it:
- Encourages critical thinking by forcing researchers to question what is taken for granted.
- Promotes theoretical innovation by opening up new perspectives and paradigms.
- Contributes more significantly to academic debates rather than making minor additions.
If you want to move beyond conventional research and ask truly groundbreaking questions, Alvesson and Sandberg’s problematization method is a powerful tool.
By identifying, challenging, and replacing assumptions, researchers can break free from incremental knowledge production and contribute to genuine theoretical breakthroughs.
The next time you formulate a research question, ask yourself:
“Am I just filling a gap, or am I challenging the very foundations of this field?”
If you enjoyed this post and want to explore more critical approaches to political communication, be sure to:
✅ Subscribe for more political analysis through the lens of problematization.
✅ Share this post with others who value critical thinking in politics.
✅ Comment below—what political speech should we analyze next?
Let’s keep the conversation going.
 |
 |
 |