Assignment:
Remember all participation replies each topic week should be substantive with 250 words. If citing a source please demonstrate APA 7th edition.
Hello Class,
A problem space is identified when a researcher systematically demonstrates that existing knowledge is insufficient to explain, address, or illuminate an important phenomenon. This process begins with a critical synthesis of the literature rather than a descriptive review. As Ravitch and Riggan (2017) explain, researchers must analyze how bodies of scholarship frame a phenomenon, what perspectives dominate the conversation, and which questions are routinely sidelined. The problem space emerges at the intersection of what is known, what is assumed, and what remains unresolved.
Importantly, identifying a problem space requires evaluating not only what has been studied, but how knowledge has been produced. Methodological patterns often signal constraints in understanding. For example, fields such as performance psychology frequently prioritize cross-sectional designs and standardized measures to assess constructs like anxiety regulation, confidence, or motivation. While these approaches are valuable, they may restrict insight into how performers interpret their experiences over time or assign meaning to pivotal moments in their careers (Maxwell, 2013). By interrogating these methodological tendencies, researchers can locate areas where alternative approaches are needed.
A well-defined problem space also reflects contextual blind spots in the literature. In elite sport research, much attention has been devoted to optimizing performance outcomes, yet fewer studies examine how athletes at the highest levels cognitively and emotionally process achievement, identity, and long-term success. When populations are repeatedly examined through performance metrics rather than interpretive perspectives, a gap emerges in understanding the psychological dimensions of excellence. Identifying this imbalance allows researchers to position their study as addressing an underdeveloped yet consequential dimension of the field (Smith, 2020).
Justifying the need for a study within a problem space requires several interrelated arguments. First, the researcher must establish disciplinary relevance by explaining why the problem has meaningful implications for theory, practice, or both. In psychology, unresolved questions about meaning-making, identity, or sustained performance can limit the effectiveness of applied interventions and theoretical models. Demonstrating these implications underscores the importance of the study beyond academic curiosity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Second, the researcher must clearly articulate why existing research is inadequate. This involves specifying limitations such as narrow samples, overreliance on certain methodologies, or theoretical frameworks that do not fully capture the phenomenon. Broad claims about "limited research" are insufficient without a clear explanation of how current studies fall short and why those shortcomings matter. Third, the researcher must explain how the proposed study advances understanding. This includes identifying the study's unique contribution whether through a new lens, a different population, or a more suitable methodological approach and showing how it extends or challenges existing knowledge. A compelling justification demonstrates that the study is not only novel but necessary to move the field forward.
When supporting a classmate, it can be helpful to encourage them to read literature with a diagnostic lens rather than a summarizing one. Asking questions such as, "What assumptions guide this research?" or "What perspectives are consistently absent?" can help them move toward deeper problem identification. Suggesting that they trace how a concept has been studied over time may also reveal stagnation or unchallenged norms that point to a viable problem space. Another useful recommendation is to emphasize alignment between the problem space and the scholar-practitioner identity of the doctoral program. Encouraging classmates to explicitly connect their identified problem to theoretical advancement and applied relevance can strengthen coherence and scholarly rigor. Finally, advising them to use clear contrastive language to signal gaps such as juxtaposing what research emphasizes against what it overlooks can help make the need for the study immediately visible and persuasive. Need Assignment Help?
References:
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches - John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell - Google Books
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach: An Interactive Approach - Joseph A. Maxwell - Google Books
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research - Sharon M. Ravitch, Matthew Riggan - Google Books
Smith, B. (2020). Narrative inquiry in sport and exercise psychology: What can it mean, and why might we do it? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 50, 101706. Narrative inquiry in sport and exercise psychology: What can it mean, and why might we do it? - University of Birmingham -B