Administrivia

Research Project 1: Problem Understanding (RP1)

Author

Andy Weeger

Published

Invalid Date

Modified

Sep 3, 2026

Motivation

Before you can solve a problem, you have to understand what the problem is.

In this module you turn a broad practical challenge into a focused, scientifically grounded research question and then systematically review what is already known about it, a sequence deliberately paced to slow the temptation in applied research to jump straight to solutions long enough to make sure you are solving the right problem.

Contents

The module enables you to transform a broad practical challenge into a focused, scientifically grounded research question and to systematically review existing knowledge through a rigorous literature synthesis.

The core curriculum covers:

  • Challenge presentation and contextual analysis: organizational context, stakeholder landscape, and practical constraints
  • Explorative problem investigation: qualitative methods for problem exploration and theoretical contextualization
  • Philosophy of science foundations: epistemological positions, research paradigms, and their implications for research design
  • Domain-specific theoretical frameworks: key theories and their application to problem framing
  • Research question development: relevance, rigor, and originality; iterative refinement and gap identification (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011)
  • Systematic literature review methodology: search strategy, protocol, screening, appraisal, coding, and synthesis (Paré et al., 2015; Templier & Paré, 2018)
  • Academic writing and argumentation: structure and conventions of review papers, argumentation strategies, academic voice
  • Knowledge translation: communicating insights to practitioners and navigating the rigor-relevance tension

Additional content is provided on demand based on your specific challenges and needs (pull principle).

Learning Outcomes

You will advance your knowledge and skills in following areas.

Professional Competence

  • Systematically investigating practical challenges through explorative research and framing the problem through the integration of multiple theoretical perspectives
  • Critically evaluating scientific literature with regard to methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, and contextual validity, and synthesizing competing perspectives into a coherent assessment of the state of research
  • Iteratively developing a precise, theoretically grounded research question and arguing for its relevance to both academia and practice
  • Designing and executing a systematic literature review with justified search strategies, transparent criteria, and rigorous coding and synthesis
  • Adapting research communication to different epistemic communities without losing conceptual precision

Personal Competence

  • Navigating ambiguity in problem definition, tolerating conceptual tension during iterative refinement, and making defensible decisions despite incomplete information
  • Critically reflecting on your evolving understanding and proactively orchestrating support from supervisors, domain experts, and peers
  • Eliciting and synthesizing diverse stakeholder perspectives and integrating them into multi-perspective problem framings
  • Engaging in collaborative knowledge construction through peer review, and defending research choices through evidence-based argumentation

Learning Set-Up

This module combines weekly teaching units with industry inputs, team coaching, peer review, and substantial self-directed research work.

  • The push units (Wednesday mornings) give you the conceptual and methodological input. They are deliberately not filling the whole slot.
  • The industry inputs in the first three weeks open up the problem space. Eight practitioner perspectives on the challenge, each followed by structured debrief.
  • Coaching slots and pull sessions are yours to fill: tell us what kind of input and feedback you need.
  • You give a structured peer reviews and you receive ones.
  • The self-learning components (i.e., project work) are where most of the work happens.

Your learning progress is reflected in multiple assignments.

Teams

Teams are not formed in the first session.

  • Weeks 1 to 3 are individual work: you build your own reading of the industry inputs.
  • At the end of Phase 1 you post the tension you most want to pursue, and teams form around those clusters.
  • This means your team is grounded in a shared substantive interest, not in who sat next to whom in October.

Effort

You will gain 15 ECTS for this module. This equals approx. 450 hours workload for an average student required to pass the module.

  • Contact study (teaching units, industry inputs, workshops, coaching): 90 hours
  • Self-study (preparation, reading, literature work, writing): 360 hours

Please prepare your schedule accordingly. This is the largest module of your first semester.

Phases

Phase Weeks Guiding question Result (Examination)
Opening Perspectives 1–3 What is the problem, seen from where? Map of Perspectives
Problem Framing and RQ 4–7 How do I frame it theoretically? Problem Framing Brief
Searching and Reviewing Literature 8–11 What does research already know? Review Protocol
Documenting Results 12–14 How do I tell it to two audiences? Paper, Poster, Practice Pitch
Table 1: Phases of the module

In addition, after each phase you reflect on what critical competences you have gained (examination).

Schedule

Teaching runs on Wednesday mornings. The afternoon is, after week 3, deliberately kept free for your own work. Room is available.

The first three weeks are dense with industry inputs and extend into the afternoon. From week 4 onwards the rhythm settles.

Date Units Preparation Location
Wed, 07.10. U1: Kick-off and Industry Inputs (Ingenics, tbd) — C1
Wed, 14.10. U2: Synthesizing Insights and Industry Inputs (MBTI, tbd) Review notes from the presentations E7.1.01
Wed, 21.10. U3: Epistemology and Industry Inputs (tbd) — C1
Wed, 21.10. Assignment deadline Competence Check-in, Teams Formation Moodle
Tue, 27.10. Assignment deadline Map of Perspectives Moodle
Wed, 28.10. U4: Good Topic, U5: What is Theory and Coaching Read Brown et al. (2026), Weber (2003) C1
Wed, 04.11. U6: Good RQs and Coaching Draft of your Problem Framing Brief C2
Wed, 11.11. U7: Peer Review I and U8: What is Theorizing Reader1 and Peer Review E7.1.01
Wed, 11.11. Assignment deadline Competence Check-in Moodle
Tue, 17.11. Assignment deadline Problem Framing Brief Moodle
Wed, 18.11. U9: SLR I (Types & Goals) and Coaching E7.1.01
Wed, 25.11. U10: SLR II (Strategy) and Coaching C1
Wed, 02.12. U11: SLR III (Screening) and Coaching C1
Wed, 09.12. U12: Peer Review II and Coaching Draft of your Review Protocol C1
Sat, 12.12. Assignment deadline Review protocol Moodle
Wed, 16.12. U13: SLR IV (Synthesis) and Coaching C1
Wed, 16.12. Assignment deadline Competence Check-in Moodle
Wed, 23.12. U14: Writing Workshop C1
Wed, 13.01. Coaching and U15: Paper Structure C1
Wed, 20.01. Coaching and U16: Presentation Read Bourne (2007) C1
Wed, 20.01. Assignment deadline Competence Check-in Moodle
CW 4, tbd Poster session (Academic Audience) Paper and Poster tbd
CW 5, tbd Industry presentation (C-level Audience) Presentation tbd
Table 2: Schedule winter term 2026 (subjected to changes)

Literature

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
Bourne, P. E. (2007). Ten simple rules for making good oral presentations. PLoS Computational Biology, 3(4), e77.
Brown, S. A., Seidel, S., D’Arcy, J., Hahn, J., Hsu, C., Matook, S., Saar-Tsechansky, M., Shaikh, M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2026). Editor’s comments: Engaging with practice for impactful research. MIS Quarterly, 50(3), iii–xiv.
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199.
Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2018). Transparency in literature reviews: An assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(5), 503–550.
Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s comments: The problem of the problem. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), iii–ix.