Introduction
In contemporary academic research, the most commonly accepted path to scholarly contribution is through the identification of “gaps” in the literature. This so-called “gap-spotting” logic underpins the vast majority of publications across the social sciences. But what if this approach, far from advancing knowledge, actually restricts its possibilities? In their seminal 2013 work, Mats Alvesson and Jörgen Sandberg argue for a radical shift in the way we think about research. They call for problematization—the systematic questioning of underlying assumptions—as a superior alternative to gap-spotting. This article examines their critique of conventional research logic and explores the implications of problematization for scholarly inquiry, particularly within the field of political communication.
Enjoying the read? Subscribe to my Substack to get full access to this article and future posts delivered straight to your inbox. Stay informed, stay curious.