Research Problems

Abstract

To identify and conceptualize research problems in science, philosophers and often scientists rely on classical accounts of problems that focus on intellectual problems defined in relation to theories. Recently, philosophers have begun to study the structures and functions of research problems not defined in relation to theories. Furthermore, scientists have long pursued research problems often labeled as practical or applied. As yet, no account of problems specifies the description of both so-called intellectual problems and so-called applied problems. This article proposes a new conceptual framework of problems that accounts both for intellectual aspects of problems and for their practical or applied aspects. I illustrate the account with an example of a recent research project from evolutionary biology, and I indicate further routes by that to develop the account, especially in connection to empirical studies of science. 1Introduction2Standard Approaches 2.1Six classical approaches2.2Contemporary discussions2.3Further directions3A New Framework 3.1Slogan and reference class3.2Statements and a general propositional model3.3Agential model3.4Taxonomies3.5A framework of problems4Case Study5Problems and Questions6Conclusion

Some reflections on current invasion science and perspectives for an exciting future

“…This is a fact that has been noticed by philosophers of science for other parts of biology as well. For example, Elliott (2019) observed that research often focuses on addressing problems (for instance, species X invades a community containing endangered species) rather than testing theory (see also Love 2008) and each research problem can invoke a range of research questions. This conception of science seems to be well in line with the practices of invasion biology and philosophical studies indicate that research directed at addressing problems is not scientifically inferior to research testing hypotheses or other elements of theory.…”

Arab Media Researchers’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Their Research Problem Selection

“…Putting the research problem forward is the most important component of research (Bahc xekapili et al, 2013). Elliott (2019) proposed six approaches to defining problems in research as follows: (1) treating problems as unmet goals; (2) treating the evolution of science as being reliant on the solving of such problems; (3) treating problems either as unanswered questions or concepts tightly connected to unanswered questions; (4) treating problems as sets of constraints on solutions; (5) focusing on the relationship between agents and problems; and finally, (6) providing taxonomies of problems.…”

The nature and norms of scientific explanation: Some preliminaries

“…Chwistek's skeptical attack expressed a kind of deflationary attitude toward conceptual analysis that strikes at the very heart of the method-an attitude which has since wended its way into the literature on scientific explanation. One sees this attitude among those who believe that, at bottom, science aims instead to solve problems (Laudan, 1977;Elliott, 2021;Levenstein and et al, 2024). For instance, Koertge writes, "suppose we could all agree on one or more [conceptions] of explanation.…”

“…One suggestion is that many discussions have recently moved in the direction of normative analyses of 'ontic and epistemic constraints' that explanations must satisfy in order to count as good scientific explanations. van Eck (2015;2018;2021) has argued that appealing to ontic constraints just unwittingly concedes the debate between EC and OC. Michał Oleksowicz's 'Ontic or epistemic conception of explanation: A misleading distinction?'…”