Can the Research Problem Be Different From the Problem Stakeholders Want Solved?

What if stakeholders want a solution but your study can only answer part of the problem?

A school wants to reduce student dropout. A hospital wants shorter waiting times. A company wants employees to stop leaving. A community wants flooding prevented.

These are important practical problems. They describe situations that stakeholders want changed.

But a researcher cannot simply convert “reduce dropout” into a research problem. Research needs something sufficiently specific that evidence can be collected and analyzed: perhaps uncertainty about why particular students leave, whether an intervention improves retention, how institutional practices affect persistence, or why existing measures have not worked as expected.

This can create tension. Stakeholders may reasonably ask, “How do we solve this?” while the researchable question is narrower: “What do we need to understand before a defensible solution can be chosen or evaluated?”

The research problem and the stakeholder's practical problem can therefore be different without becoming disconnected.

The problems can differ, but the relationship between them should be explicit

A societal or practical problem is not automatically a research problem

Stakeholders and researchers may be asking different kinds of questions

Stakeholders commonly encounter problems as conditions requiring action. They may want fewer accidents, better learning outcomes, lower costs, improved access, stronger employee retention, safer communities, or more effective services.

Researchers have to translate such concerns into questions that evidence can address.

The practical problem explains why somebody cares. The research problem specifies what systematic inquiry needs to establish.

Research cannot make every decision for stakeholders

Research can provide evidence about effectiveness, associations, mechanisms, experiences, costs, implementation, risks, and other relevant considerations. Decisions often involve more than evidence alone.

A city deciding how to respond to traffic congestion may need evidence about travel patterns and the likely effects of different interventions. The eventual decision can also depend on budgets, legal authority, political priorities, distributional consequences, public preferences, infrastructure constraints, and judgments about acceptable trade-offs.

Research may inform that decision without determining it.

This distinction becomes especially important when a practical problem is genuine but cannot be converted directly into something research can investigate. Researchers need to identify the component for which new knowledge can make a meaningful contribution.

A stakeholder's desired solution should not automatically define the research problem

Sometimes stakeholders approach researchers with both a problem and a preferred solution.

“Students are performing poorly, so we need to prove that tutoring works.”

“Employees are leaving, so we need research showing that a wellness program will improve retention.”

“Teachers are not using the platform, so we need to determine how much training they need.”

Each formulation contains assumptions. Tutoring may or may not address the most consequential contributors to performance. Employee turnover may not primarily reflect wellness. Lack of training may not explain technology adoption.

Research designed only to validate a predetermined intervention risks becoming confirmation rather than inquiry. A stronger process separates the practical objective from the empirical questions that must be answered.

Stakeholder knowledge still matters

Distinguishing stakeholder problems from research problems does not mean researchers should dismiss stakeholder perspectives.

Stakeholders may possess forms of contextual, professional, experiential, organizational, or community knowledge that researchers do not have. In transdisciplinary research, joint problem framing is used precisely because complex real-world problems can require integration of scientific and practical perspectives. Research on joint problem framing describes processes in which aspects of a problem situation are clarified and prioritized so that the resulting inquiry remains relevant to diverse stakeholders.

The researcher therefore should not simply translate a practical concern into academic terminology and disappear into the proverbial methods section. The translation should preserve the connection between what stakeholders need and what research can realistically contribute.

The societal problem and scientific problem can be linked without being identical

Transdisciplinary approaches explicitly distinguish yet connect societal problems and scientific knowledge production. Problem-framing work involves clarifying the societal issue, relevant actors, scientific questions, and achievable contributions of the research.

For example, a community's problem might be recurring urban flooding. A single research project cannot “solve flooding” in the abstract. It might instead investigate how land-use changes affect runoff in a particular area, assess residents' exposure to flood risk, evaluate an early-warning system, model drainage scenarios, or study barriers to adoption of mitigation measures.

Each research problem addresses only part of the societal problem. Its usefulness depends partly on whether that part contributes meaningfully to understanding, decision-making, or action.

Different stakeholders may want different problems solved

There may not be one stakeholder problem.

Consider a university introducing generative AI into teaching. Administrators might prioritize academic integrity. Faculty may be concerned about assessment validity and workload. Students may prioritize clarity about permitted use. Learning-support staff may focus on AI literacy. Employers may care about graduates' ability to use AI responsibly.

These concerns overlap, but they are not identical. If stakeholders disagree about what the underlying problem actually is, the researcher should not assume that the most powerful group supplies the definitive formulation.

Instead, the research team may need to identify areas of shared concern, document competing framings, negotiate priorities where appropriate, or deliberately choose one dimension while acknowledging the others.

Joint problem framing does not require pretending all interests are identical

Research on transdisciplinary problem framing emphasizes the challenge of accommodating heterogeneous perspectives, interests, values, and expectations. Joint problem framing can help establish a shared orientation for research, but the process may involve negotiation and continuing differences rather than effortless consensus.

Some scholarship has cautioned that attempts to create a single common definition can flatten meaningful diversity among perspectives. A useful framing may therefore need to preserve important differences while still defining a sufficiently coherent object of inquiry.

The goal is not necessarily to make every stakeholder want the same thing. It is to understand how the proposed research relates to the different concerns and what contribution it can realistically make.

Stakeholder relevance does not mean stakeholder control over scientific conclusions

Stakeholders may appropriately influence problem identification, priorities, contextual interpretation, feasibility, implementation, or the types of outcomes considered useful. The degree of involvement varies considerably among research traditions and projects.

But conclusions still need to follow from the evidence and methods. If findings contradict a sponsor's assumptions or preferred solution, stakeholder relevance does not justify rewriting the evidence to produce the desired answer.

The relationship should therefore preserve both practical relevance and research integrity.

Researchers should be equally careful not to replace the practical problem with an academically convenient one

The opposite error is also possible.

A stakeholder presents an urgent operational problem, and researchers reformulate it into a question that fits their preferred theory, available dataset, familiar instrument, or publication agenda but contributes little to the original concern.

The resulting study may be methodologically impeccable and practically irrelevant.

A researchable problem should not merely be something you know how to study. It should retain a defensible connection to the problem that made the research worth undertaking, particularly when practical relevance is part of the project's purpose.

From “reduce dropout” to a research problem that can inform action

The research problem is not identical to “reduce attrition.” Nor is the study itself the solution to attrition. It produces evidence that may improve the institution's understanding and subsequent decisions.

This translation from practical concern to empirical uncertainty is part of turning a real-world problem into something research can actually investigate.

Common mistakes when stakeholder needs meet research questions

Connect the practical problem to a contribution research can realistically make

Begin by writing the stakeholder problem in ordinary language. What condition do people want changed? Who experiences it as a problem? What decision are they trying to make? What outcome are they hoping to achieve?

Then ask what prevents informed action. Perhaps the causes are unclear. Perhaps several interventions are available but their effectiveness is uncertain. Perhaps implementation is poorly understood. Perhaps stakeholders disagree about the nature of the problem itself.

That uncertainty may provide the bridge to a research problem.

Next, state what your study can contribute. Be specific. “Solve student dropout” is not a credible research contribution. “Identify factors associated with withdrawal among first-year students in this context” or “estimate the effect of a specified intervention under defined conditions” is considerably more precise.

A useful way to test the connection is to complete two sentences: “Stakeholders need to decide or act on ______.” Then: “This research will reduce uncertainty about ______.” If the second statement has no meaningful bearing on the first, the project may have drifted away from the practical problem.

If the two statements are identical, however, you may be expecting research to accomplish something broader than evidence alone can deliver. That distinction becomes particularly important when a real practical problem cannot ultimately be resolved by research itself.

Before translating a stakeholder problem into a research problem

Questions about research problems and stakeholder problems

The research problem should contribute to the practical problem without pretending to be the same thing

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.