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 & 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’s 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’re looking to shake up conventional research and introduce bold, new ideas, problematization is the tool you need.
The Six Steps of Problematization
Alvesson & 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 need to define the field in which your research takes place.
Start by asking:
- 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 was 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.
Some common types of assumptions include:
- In-house assumptions — Beliefs held within a specific theory or school of thought. For example, leadership studies often assume that leadership is about individuals, not groups.
- Root metaphor assumptions — Deep beliefs that shape research perspectives, such as viewing organizations as machines, which implies predictability and structure.
- Paradigm assumptions — Broad ideas that dominate an entire discipline, like the assumption in economics that people are always rational decision-makers.
- Ideological assumptions — Political or value-driven beliefs, such as the idea that economic growth is always beneficial.
- Field assumptions — Shared beliefs that shape an entire academic field, such as the assumption in psychology that human behavior is primarily influenced by cognition rather than social structures.
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 you identify key assumptions, it’s time to critically evaluate them. The goal is to uncover contradictions, oversimplifications, or outdated reasoning.
Ways to challenge assumptions include:
✅ Historical analysis — Have these assumptions changed over time?
✅ Alternative theories — Are there competing frameworks that challenge these assumptions?
✅ Empirical evidence — Does real-world data support or contradict these assumptions?
Ask yourself:
- Are these assumptions logically consistent?
- What contradictions or tensions exist in current research?
- Can alternative explanations offer a better understanding?
Step 4: Develop Alternative Assumptions
Problematization isn’t just about criticizing existing frameworks — it also requires proposing alternative perspectives.
Some strategies for developing alternatives include:
✅ Reversing the assumption — What if the opposite were true?
✅ Expanding the framework — Are there missing dimensions that should be considered?
✅ Integrating perspectives — Can multiple theories be combined for a more comprehensive understanding?
Ask yourself:
- What alternative ways of thinking exist?
- How does reframing the problem change possible solutions?
- What perspectives have been excluded from dominant theories?
Step 5: Consider the Theoretical and Empirical Implications
When you introduce new assumptions, they will naturally change how we understand the topic. This step involves thinking through the consequences of these changes.
Ask yourself:
- How does this shift affect our understanding of the research area?
- What new areas of study does this open up?
- What are the practical consequences of adopting these new assumptions?
For example, if leadership is viewed as a collective process rather than an individual trait, how does that change leadership training, hiring practices, or organizational policies?
Step 6: Reformulate Research Questions
The final step is to use the alternative assumptions to create new, more critical research questions. Instead of reinforcing existing perspectives, these questions should challenge dominant theories and encourage fresh ways of thinking.
Examples of reformulated questions:
🚫 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 research problem?
- How do these new questions challenge existing knowledge?
- What practical changes can result from rethinking the issue?
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.
✔ Leads to theoretical innovation by opening up new perspectives and paradigms.
✔ Produces more significant contributions to academic debates rather than just minor additions.
Final Thoughts
If you want to move beyond conventional research and ask truly groundbreaking questions, Alvesson & Sandberg’s problematization method is a powerful tool.
By identifying, challenging, and replacing assumptions, researchers can break away from incremental knowledge production and contribute to theoretical breakthroughs.
So 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?”
