COMM1120 Chap.3 Defining Problems with Research Evidence
Defining Problems with Research Evidence
Problem definition turns broad concern into a focused opportunity supported by evidence. 5W1H maps the landscape, 5 Whys probes possible causal chains, and Laddering connects attributes and consequences to human values.
The tools answer different uncertainties and should not be inserted as decorative labels.
Primary research provides fresh observations or accounts; secondary research supplies existing context and findings. Triangulation compares evidence types, including contradictions. A How Might We statement should identify people or context and a desired change while remaining open to multiple solutions.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Match each uncertainty to a problem tool
- 02
Separate assumption, observation and interpretation
- 03
Use primary and secondary evidence deliberately
- 04
Build an open How Might We frame
- 05
Connect milestones, risks and success factors
Worked example · free
Repair a narrow problem statement
- +1Identify the prescribed solution.
- +1Challenge the absolute outcome.
- +1Define people and context through evidence.
- +1Write an open desired change.
Key terms
- 5W1H
- A scoping framework covering who, what, when, where, why and how.
- 5 Whys
- A repeated causal questioning technique used to probe beneath a visible symptom.
- Laddering
- A questioning approach that connects attributes and consequences to underlying values.
- Primary research
- New evidence gathered directly through interviews, surveys, observations or related methods.
- Triangulation
- Comparing multiple evidence sources or methods to strengthen or challenge an interpretation.
Defining Problems with Research Evidence FAQ
Which problem tool should I use?
Choose according to the uncertainty. Use 5W1H for boundaries and context, 5 Whys for a possible cause chain, and Laddering for the values or motivations behind behaviour.
Is primary research always stronger?
No. Method strength depends on the claim. Existing data may establish scale, while interviews explain experience and observation reveals behaviour. Combining sources can expose both convergence and contradiction.
What makes a How Might We statement useful?
It identifies a meaningful person or situation and desired change without embedding a preferred feature. It should give solution work direction while leaving space for genuine alternatives.
How should a project plan use evidence?
Milestones should represent inspectable learning or delivery states. Success factors, dependencies and risks should connect to the defined problem and explain how the team will adapt if an assumption fails.
Assessment move
Take one broad issue and map it with 5W1H, then choose one causal belief for 5 Whys and one human consequence for Laddering. Mark every sentence as assumption, observation, interpretation or supported claim. Rewrite the final frame until it has direction without a built-in solution. Begin with a claim ledger.
For each important project statement, record the claim, source, date or context, what the evidence directly supports, and what remains inferred. Add a confidence note only after examining source quality and relevance. This exposes phrases that sound factual but are actually team assumptions. Practise choosing methods by decision need. If you need scale, identify credible secondary data.
If you need experience or language, plan an interview. If you need behaviour in context, design an observation. If you need to compare preferences, consider a suitable survey while acknowledging sampling limits. For each method, write one claim it could support and one claim it could not. Use triangulation as a comparison rather than a collection target.
Place evidence from different sources side by side and ask where it converges, where it conflicts and whether the difference reflects population, timing, method or interpretation. A contradiction may narrow the problem more effectively than another confirming source. Train 5 Whys carefully by attaching evidence to every causal step. If a link has no support, mark it as a hypothesis and choose a test.
Use Laddering to explore why a consequence matters, but avoid treating one participant’s value as universal. When drafting a How Might We statement, highlight the user or context, desired change and insight. Circle any feature or technology. Remove it unless the evidence has justified a solution boundary. Finally, connect the frame to the project plan.
Write milestones as observable learning states, name critical conditions, and pair each risk with an impact and response. This turns planning into a way to manage uncertainty rather than a calendar copied after decisions are made. Rehearse a short evidence briefing in which every slide answers one question: what is happening, whom it affects, why the team believes it happens and what remains unknown.
Ask a listener to flag leaps between a source and a conclusion. Revise the claim rather than adding vague citations. Then show how the narrowed frame changes the milestones, stakeholder activity and risk response in the proposed plan. State which unresolved assumption receives the earliest test and why its failure would matter.
Working through Defining Problems with Research Evidence in COMM1120? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any COMM1120 Defining Problems with Research Evidence question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how COMM1120 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
