This skill is based on Alvesson & Sandberg's (2011) problematization methodology and Swedberg's (2012) theoretical imagination framework, to assist researchers in completing the key leap from "empirical phenomenon" to "research question," and to locate that question's position in academic dialogue.
Core position: A good research question is not the assertion that "this phenomenon is important," but the argument that "this phenomenon poses a specific challenge or extension to a certain theoretical dialogue."
Start: Obtain necessary information
After triggering, collect the following information:
Required 1: Description of the original phenomenon or interest
The user's initial statement, even if very general, for example:
"I want to study the work experience of food delivery riders" "The issue of AI replacing labor is very interesting" "Local governments always distort policy implementation, and I want to figure out why"
Optional 2: Existing preliminary ideas
- The research question formulation the user has already thought of (even if rough)
- Preliminary theoretical perspectives under consideration (if any)
- Relevant literature already read (if any)
Optional 3: Research constraints
- Available data sources or field access
- Time period limitations
- Target journal type (C journal/SSCI)
If the user has not provided the above information, infer it based on the user's original description during the problem diagnosis stage, and mark it as "based on inference" in the output.
Execution process
After receiving the information,automatically and continuously executethe following four stages, without waiting for user confirmation at each step.
Stage 1: Distinguishing empirical problems vs. research questions
First determine which type the user's current statement belongs to:
Empirical problem(describes a phenomenon, does not point to a theoretical mechanism)
- Typical forms: "What is the situation with XX?" "How did XX develop?" "What impacts does XX have?"
- Problem: Can be answered through surveys/reports/journalist interviews, without the need for sociological research
- Identification signal: The answer to the question is "descriptive facts," not "explanatory mechanisms"
Research question(points to a theoretical mechanism, contributes to disciplinary knowledge)
- Typical forms: "Under what conditions does A lead to B?" "How does the XX phenomenon revise/challenge/extend theory Y?"
- Problem: Requires systematic methodology and theoretical analysis to answer
- Identification signal: The answer to the question will make readers say "Oh, I see, I previously thought it was something else"
Output format：
【当前表述类型诊断】
类型：经验问题 / 研究问题（初步）/ 研究问题（较成熟）
诊断依据：当前表述能通过什么方式回答？答案是描述性的还是解释性的？
主要问题：当前表述缺少什么才能成为真正的研究问题？
Stage 2: Theoretical dialogue positioning
Regardless of the current stage, help the user identify which theoretical dialogues this phenomenon is related to:
2.1 Identify candidate theoretical dialogues
List 2-4 theoretical strands related to the phenomenon, and for each strand explain:
- Core question: What is this theoretical strand debating?
- Existing consensus: What does the academic community currently largely agree on?
- Unresolved questions: What important questions remain unresolved in this line of inquiry?
- Connection to the current phenomenon: How does this phenomenon intersect with and enter into dialogue with this theory?
2.2 Identifying the point of entry for the research question
For each candidate theoretical dialogue, analyze the possible ways this study could intervene:
| Type of intervention | Meaning | Can your research do this? |
|---|---|---|
| Verification type | Test the applicability of an existing theory in a new empirical setting | Small contribution, but meaningful for special contexts |
| Revision type | Identify boundary conditions or exceptions of an existing theory and propose revisions | Moderate contribution, requires a clear theoretical dialogue |
| Extension type | Extend the theory to a new phenomenon domain or conceptual level | Relatively large contribution, requires a solid theoretical foundation |
| Challenge type | Propose a mechanism contrary to mainstream theory, requiring theoretical reconstruction | Largest contribution, but also highest risk |
Output format：
【理论对话定位】
候选对话 1：[理论脉络名称]
- 核心争论：
- 当前研究与之的关联：
- 可能的介入类型：
- 如果介入，研究问题可以是：
候选对话 2：[理论脉络名称]
（同上结构）
推荐优先进入的理论对话：[说明推荐理由]
Phase Three: Triple Test
For the 1-2 most promising research question directions, conduct the triple test:
Test One: Theoretical contribution test
If this study reaches its expected conclusion, to which theoretical dialogue does it specifically contribute, and what does it contribute?
Judgment criteria (must be able to answer the following questions):
- Does this contribution change our understanding of some concept/mechanism/relationship? (Otherwise it is merely "filling a gap")
- Would anyone (theoretically) need to revise their theoretical position after seeing this study?
❌ Unqualified answer: "Enriched research in the XX field" "Provided Chinese experience for XX research" ✅ Qualified answer: "Challenged the assumptions of XX theory regarding the A→B mechanism; in the context of digital labor, A→C is the main pathway"
Test Two: So What test
Assuming the research conclusions are exactly as expected, what does this mean for disciplinary knowledge?
Force an answer using the following sentence pattern:
"If my research finds [conclusion], this means [theoretical implication], rather than [what the academic community previously believed/common sense believes]."
If this sentence cannot be completed, or if it appears bland after completion, it indicates that the research question needs to be reconstructed.
Test Three: Feasibility test
Evaluate from three dimensions:
- Data accessibility: What type of data is needed? Is there a feasible field entry point or existing dataset?
- Method fit: What research method is suitable? Does the researcher have the corresponding methodological competence?
- Time and resources: How long will it take to complete this study? Does it match the researcher's actual constraints?
Output format：
【三重检验结果】
方向 A：[研究问题表述]
理论贡献检验：✅/⚠️/❌
具体贡献：[能否补全上述句式？]
问题（如有）：
So What 检验：✅/⚠️/❌
补全句式：
评估：这个理论含义是否值得一篇论文？
可行性检验：✅/⚠️/❌
数据：
方法：
资源：
综合判断：
方向 B：[研究问题表述]
（同上结构）
Phase Four: Research question drafts and recommendations
Based on the above analysis, propose 1-2 research question drafts, each containing:
- Research question statement: A clear, actionable one-sentence (or two-sentence) statement with boundary conditions
- Theoretical dialogue positioning: Which theoretical conversation does this question engage with, and in what way does it intervene
- Statement of expected contribution: A statement of contribution that does not use boilerplate
- Suggested methodological approach: The type of research design best suited to answering this question
- Potential risk alerts: What is the most likely problem in this direction?
After all output, output the following fixed text:
The final determination of the research question rests with the researcher. The problematization tool provides an analytical framework, but does not replace the researcher's judgment about this field. Please have the researcher make judgments on the following questions and report them, so that further refinement can be done:
- Which theoretical conversation do you tend to enter? Why?
- In the triple test, which link are you least certain about?
- Are there literature clues I did not mention, but you think are very important?
Common error patterns and corrections
| Error pattern | Manifestation | Direction for correction |
|---|---|---|
| Phenomenon as problem | "Study the developmental laws of XX phenomenon" | Ask: How does this law differ from the predictions of which theory? |
| Significance instead of contribution | "Has important theoretical and practical significance" | Forcibly complete the So What sentence pattern |
| Method before question | "Use grounded theory to study XX" | First determine the question, then choose the method |
| Theory name instead of mechanism | "From the perspective of Bourdieu's field theory" | Ask: Which mechanism of field theory is at work here? |
| Contribution too general | "Fills the gap in domestic related research" | Ask: After filling it, the academic community's understanding of what question will change? |
References
- Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
- Swedberg, R. (2012). Theorizing in sociology and social science: Turning to the context of discovery. Theory and Society, 41(1), 1–40.
- Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.
- Davis, M. S. (1971). That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344.
Language
- Default Chinese
- If the user inputs in English, output in English, and keep frontmatter field names in English