FASS3999 Chap.7 Finding the Gap and Framing the Project
Finding the Gap and Framing the Project
Week 6 moves the unit from analysing partners to building your own project. The lecture starts from a warning in the problem-structuring literature: invest in problem formulation before jumping to solutions, or risk solving the wrong problem.
It defines a gap, after van der Lei and colleagues, as the distance between the present or anticipated state of affairs and the one you want to reach, which may be a problem to fix or a chance for enrichment. The semester is presented as three steps: analyse how partners see the gap, research and pitch with your group while seeking feedback, then argue for the gap as your group understands it.
The lecture names four valid project types, from reframing the gap to addressing a different one, and insists every type needs research and justification. This chapter adds a method for narrowing a broad concern into a research question and explains how the pitch, report, exegesis and intervention divide the work.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Problem formulation before solutions
- 02
A gap between existing and desired situations
- 03
Problem gaps and enrichment gaps
- 04
Three steps from partner analysis to group project
- 05
Four valid project types and the evidence each needs
- 06
Narrowing a central phenomenon to a research question
- 07
How the pitch, report, exegesis and intervention fit together
Worked example · free
From a broad housing worry to a project plan
- +1Central phenomenon: international students in shared private rentals face insecure, poor-quality housing.
- +1Gap: the existing situation is informal subletting with few protections; the desired situation is that students know and can use their rights.
- +1Project type: right gap, wrong approach, if partners rely on general tenant advice that students rarely find.
- +1Research question: what stops international students in two inner suburbs from using existing tenancy advice, and which channels would reach them?
- +1Intervention: a multilingual short-video guide co-designed with student associations, justified in the exegesis.
Key terms
- Problem Formulation
- The work of defining a problem carefully before choosing a response, to avoid addressing the wrong issue.
- Enrichment Gap
- A gap defined by value that could be added to something already working, rather than by harm to be repaired.
- Central Phenomenon
- The specific situation a group wants to understand, contribute to or change.
- Research Question
- A focused question that is relevant, anchored in disciplines, researchable in the time available and precise.
- Project Type
- The stance a group takes toward partners' framing and approach, such as reframing the gap or improving what works.
Finding the Gap and Framing the Project FAQ
What is the gap the unit keeps referring to?
It is the distance between how things are, or are expected to be, and how you want them to be. Your group can disagree with partners about either side of that gap or about the approach to closing it.
Which project type is safest?
None is safer. The lecture describes all four as valid, and each needs research that justifies its judgement about the partners, whether you reframe the gap, replace an approach, improve one or choose another gap.
How narrow should our research question be?
Narrow enough that you can say what evidence would answer it within the semester. Specify a population, place or practice, and avoid questions that would need a national survey to settle.
What is the exegesis in the group project?
It is the explanatory writing that accompanies your intervention, justifying its form, audience and design. It works best when it explains choices rather than repeating the research report.
Do we have to present everything in the pitch?
No. The pitch is ten minutes and exists to test your direction and gather feedback, so prioritise the gap, your stance, the research question and the planned intervention over background.
Assessment move
Start with the gap, not the intervention. As a group, write the two sides of the gap separately, then list the partners' views of each side and where you agree or disagree. Choose a project type only after you have searched for evidence on both sides, and record what evidence would change your mind.
Use the research-question check on every draft question: relevant, anchored, researchable, precise and inclusive of the group's perspectives. Expect to rewrite the question three or four times. Allocate research tasks by discipline, then schedule a synthesis meeting where each member presents findings against the shared question rather than a separate topic.
For the pitch, rehearse a ten-minute version in which background takes no more than a quarter of the time, and prepare two specific questions you want feedback on. After the pitch, write down every piece of feedback and decide as a group what you will change; that record feeds both the final report and your individual Critical Reflection. Book into the optional Week 7 workshop that best matches your planned output.
