How to Write the "Statement of the Problem" in Research - Practical Research 1

A strong “statement of the problem” is not a list of research questions—it’s a narrative justification that explains what’s wrong or unknown, why it matters, and what the study will try to achieve. The lecture’s central message is that many students mistakenly collapse the statement of the problem with the research questions, producing sections that read like question banks rather than a coherent argument for a research gap.

The instructor begins by calling out common incorrect formats used by students and even some teachers. In the flawed examples, the “statement of the problem” is written as if it were the subsection for research questions—complete with respondent profiles (age, sex, year level, income), and multiple “what/how” questions about influences, perceptions, academic performance, and challenges. A second error repeats the same pattern: the section is framed as “aims to determine” and then immediately followed by guided questions about difficulties and contributing factors. A third example similarly turns the problem section into a set of operational questions about engine performance and failure signs. Across these cases, the problem is not the topic choice but the structure: the section is treated as research questions rather than as a concise explanation of the research problem.

To correct that, the lecture defines the statement of the problem as a brief, concrete summary of the unanswered question, controversy, or untested hypothesis that the researcher wants to address. It ties the statement directly to the research gap: research begins by identifying an issue or gap in knowledge, and the statement of the problem is where that gap is articulated in the introduction/background/rationale portion of a thesis or dissertation. The lecture emphasizes three core functions: (1) contextualize the gap by explaining the meaning, nature, and dynamics of the issue and what remains unaddressed; (2) establish relevance by explaining why more knowledge is needed; and (3) set the main goal and objectives of the study.

The lecture then lays out recommended steps for building the statement of the problem. First, conduct problem formulation or gap spotting—because research is not done “for the sake of doing research,” but to address a real problem or fill a knowledge gap. Next, write the background/context to situate the issue. Then articulate the problem itself in a narrative form (not one sentence, and not a question list), including what happens if the issue is left unchecked. After that, state the main goal (one major goal, with objectives as sub-goals), articulate the thesis statement as an argument/claim about the problem, and explain the compelling reason for pursuing the study. Only after these elements are in place should research questions appear.

Two samples illustrate the difference. In the police-officers example tied to the COVID-19 pandemic, the background first establishes economic and social impacts, then narrows to frontline pressure and mental health risks supported by the World Health Organization. The statement of the problem follows as a coherent explanation of why police officers’ lived experiences matter and what risks increase if the problem remains unaddressed. The research questions then break the problem into two qualitative guiding questions (challenges/difficulties and coping), aligning with a phenomenological approach.

A second sample from a dissertation format further reinforces the distinction by showing a long, argument-driven problem section that includes implementation gaps and why they matter, followed by a purpose statement and only then research questions. The lecture closes by reiterating that research questions are a breakdown of the problem, not the problem itself—especially in qualitative designs, where adding “profile” questions is often unnecessary.