Kenya → Africa ai@b4life.institute
Innovation Lab Partner with us
Week 1 · Session 1 · Discovery

The anatomy of a researchable problem.

Session 1 transforms a passive thematic interest into a paradigm-grounded, epistemologically coherent research problem. Most scholars enter the academy with a broad phenomenon — artificial intelligence in governance, digital financial inclusion, decentralised health systems — confusing a domain of interest with a problem, and a problem with a researchable thesis.

3 hours · Live Monday 12 October 2026 18:00–21:00 EAT Framing Canvas produced
Enrolment open

Reserve your place in Session 1.

To enrol, email utafiti.institute@gmail.com with the subject line "PRA Session 1". You will receive an automatic reply within a few minutes containing your confirmation, the Google Meet link, and a calendar file for the session.

Enrol via email Enrolment closes Monday 11 October, 23:59 EAT.
WhatsApp: +254 111 748 864
Aim of Session 1

From phenomenon to defensible problem.

A phenomenon is merely a backdrop; a research problem is an acute structural tension, contradiction, or boundary failure within existing knowledge. Furthermore, no problem exists in an epistemological vacuum. How one defines a problem is governed by underlying ontological assumptions about reality (whether objective and discoverable, or constructed and negotiated) and axiological commitments regarding the purpose of inquiry (to explain, comprehend, deconstruct, or transform).

A question aimed at measuring variance belongs to one paradigm; a question unearthing hidden power structures belongs to another (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Ochara, 2022). This session forces scholars to confront their tacit philosophical commitments, align them with their domain of interest, and formulate a defensible problem statement. By the conclusion of Session 1, scholars will not simply state what they intend to study; they will articulate the precise intellectual tradition within which their inquiry operates and defend its foundational premise.

Strategic Objectives

Five objectives. Five panels. One canvas.

The five objectives follow the Discover → Design → Analyse → Argue → Publish & Defend spine that structures the doctoral apprenticeship. Each objective constructs one panel of the Session 1 Framing Canvas.

01
Discover

Declare the Philosophical Stance.

Interrogate and explicitly declare your ontological, epistemological, and axiological commitments. Scholars must determine whether they operate within a functionalist, interpretive, critical, or complex-realist tradition, establishing the philosophical boundary conditions of their inquiry.

Deliverable: Canvas Panel 1 — Epistemological & Paradigmatic Position. Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Garbutt, 2016; Ochara, 2022.
02
Design

Isolate the Problem from the Domain.

Deconstruct the distinction between a thematic domain (a sphere of practice), a research problem (an unaddressed theoretical or empirical contradiction), and a research question (the analytical lever used to resolve the problem). Write a definitive problem statement that resists reduction to a mere topic description.

Deliverable: Canvas Panel 2 — Problem Formulation & Theoretical Tension. Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Ochara, 2022.
03
Analyse

Interrogate the Evidence & Map the Knowledge Frontier.

Gather empirical and theoretical evidence confirming that the problem is real rather than assumed. Construct a preliminary map of the existing literature — identifying dominant paradigms, methodologies, and unresolved theoretical boundaries.

Deliverable: Canvas Panel 3 — Empirical Grounding & Literature Frontier. Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010.
04
Argue

Formulate the Core Research Question.

Formulate a primary research question whose inquiry logic (what, why, how, or under what conditions) is internally consistent with your declared paradigm. Bound the inquiry precisely using Population, Concept, and Context (PCC).

Deliverable: Canvas Panel 4 — Primary Research Question & Methodological Bounds. Saunders et al., 2019; Tricco et al., 2018.
05
Publish & Defend

Articulate the Knowledge Contribution & Defend.

Define the scholarly and practical stakes of the inquiry. Articulate what changes in the theoretical landscape if this problem is solved, and defend the complete research framing orally under real-time academic scrutiny.

Deliverable: Canvas Panel 5 — Intellectual Stakes & 300-Second Defence. Blaikie, 2009; Maxwell, 2013.
Session 1 Framing Canvas

Precision. Not vagueness.

Note to Scholar: Complete each panel during the seminar working session. Express your answers with precision, avoiding vagueness or generalities. This completed canvas forms the foundational architecture for your Session 2 Scoping Review. Fields are editable — type directly, then print the page to PDF.
01

Epistemological & Paradigmatic Position

Express your broad area of inquiry in one declarative sentence.
1.2 — Ontological Commitment Select one.
1.3 — Epistemological Orientation Select one.
1.4 — Core Inquiry Mandate
1.5 — Derived Paradigm Alignment Derived from 1.2–1.4.
02

Problem Formulation

What specific failure, contradiction, or unexplained anomaly exists within your domain of inquiry? Max 150 words.
Why is this a true research problem rather than simply an umbrella topic? One sentence.
State your research problem in one unambiguous, high-density sentence.
03

Empirical Grounding & Knowledge Frontier

3.1 — Primary Evidentiary Anchor Points Cite three pivotal sources — academic literature, empirical reports, or institutional benchmarks — establishing that this problem exists.
What do mainstream frameworks currently explain regarding this problem? 2–3 sentences.
How has this problem historically been investigated, and what are the methodological limits of those past approaches? 2–3 sentences.
What remains unknown, unexplained, or theoretically unresolved? One sentence.
04

Primary Research Question & Methodological Scope

Formulate your central inquiry, ensuring the analytical phrasing aligns with your declared paradigm in Panel 1.
Who, what, or which system is being interrogated?
What core concept, mechanism, or relationship is under investigation?
What are the geographic, temporal, organisational, or structural boundaries of this study?
Why is this specific question necessary to resolve the problem, and why would alternative formulations fail? One sentence.
05

Intellectual Stakes & The 300-Second Defence

What specific theoretical advance occurs if this question is answered? One sentence.
How does resolving this problem change decision-making or institutional practice? One sentence.
5.3 — Defense Script Outline your 5-minute oral defence along the following spine.
  1. Domain & Paradox: "In the domain of [Topic], we observe [Paradox / Gap]…"
  2. Problem Statement: "This presents a critical problem because [Problem Statement]…"
  3. Evidentiary Basis: "The reality of this problem is demonstrated by [Evidence]…"
  4. Paradigmatic Lens & Question: "Approaching this from a [Paradigm] position, I ask [Primary Research Question]…"
  5. Intellectual Yield: "Resolving this question advances our understanding by [Core Contribution]…"
References

Foundational Seminar Readings.

The ten works that underpin Session 1. Read at least Alvesson & Sandberg, Ochara, and Roode before the session.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152.
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Polity.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Heinemann.
Girard, N., Cardona, A., & Fiorelli, C. (2025). Learning how to develop a research question throughout the PhD process. Higher Education, 89(4), 1001–1020.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), Article 69.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Ochara, N. M. (2022). Reflecting on the nature of science and the little-known role of retroductive reasoning in research. SSRN.
Roode, J. D. (1993). Implications for teaching of a process-based research framework for information systems. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management, 61–78.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.
Supplementary Bibliography — 14 further sources

Adosi, C. (2020). Challenges faced by undergraduate students in academic writing [Master's thesis, Bahir Dar University].

Cronje, J. (2016). Towards an integration of paradigmatic and pragmatic research in information systems. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 77(1), 1–14.

Cronje, J. C. (2020). Designing questions for research design and design research in e-learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(1), 13–24.

Cross, M., & Backhouse, J. (2014). Evaluating doctoral programmes in Africa. Higher Education Policy, 27(4), 457–478.

Garbutt, M. (2016). Disciplinary kingdoms and the pursuit of pragmatism in research. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 77(1), 1–10.

Herman, C. (2017). Presence and absence: Illuminating the social and academic experiences of doctoral students in South Africa [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State].

Jowi, J. O. (2012). African universities in the global knowledge economy. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(1), 1–15.

Lee, A. S. (2014). Theory is king? But first, what is theory? Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 350–352.

Mason, J. (2018). Intellectual puzzles and research questions. In Qualitative researching (3rd ed., pp. 3–19). SAGE.

Mouton, J. (2017). Postgraduate studies in Africa: A statistical profile. In Doctoral education in South Africa (pp. 25–44). African Minds.

Nkomo, S. M. (2011). A postcolonial and anti-colonial reading of 'African' leadership and management. Organization, 18(3), 365–386.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Science as falsification. In Conjectures and refutations (pp. 33–39). Routledge.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

Tricco, A. C., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.

Wilkins, S., Neri, S., & Lean, J. (2019). The role of theory in the business/management PhD. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3), Article 100316.