Unit 4: Formulation of Research Problems
4.1 Realization of Problem
The research’s beginning is not a method but a discomfort — the felt gap: the doctrine’s puzzle (the two NKP lines that don’t reconcile), the practice’s itch (the execution docket’s clog), the reform’s question (the statute’s failure in the field), the curiosity’s spark (the seminar’s unanswered question). The sources of realisation: the caseload’s patterns (the lawyer’s own files), the literature’s margins (the articles’ “further research needed”), the policy’s debates (the amendment bills’ questions), the field’s observations (the courtroom’s realities), and the supervisor’s prodding. The realisation’s discipline: the irritation must become an intellectual question — the first transformation of research.
4.2 Identification of Problem
The discomfort’s conversion into a researchable matter: the topic’s location (the field: criminal procedure; the institution: the Debt Recovery Tribunal; the rule: the guarantee’s autonomy), the researchable vs non-researchable test (a researchable problem: specific, evidence-answerable, within the researcher’s means; not: the vague sermon — “the law should be better” — nor the unanswerable — “is the death penalty just?” without the framing that makes it answerable). The screening questions: what exactly is unknown? is data accessible? is it within time-and-resources? is it original (the literature’s check) or usefully replicable? The researcher’s self-audit: interest (the thesis-marriage’s length), competence (the method’s skills — can you run the regression, or is the doctrinal design the honest choice?), and access (the courts’ permissions, the prisons’ gates).
4.3 Statement of Problem
The problem’s formal declaration — a paragraph (or a page) that states: the context (the law’s area and its importance), the gap (what is unknown/unresolved), the question(s) (the interrogative form — the research’s precise questions), and (in the empirical design) the objectives’ list (the numbered answers sought). The statement’s tests: the specificity (one problem, not a province), the answerability (the evidence exists or is collectable), the neutrality (the question without the smuggled conclusion), and the scope’s honesty (the limits declared). Example’s anatomy (the exam’s craft):
This is a preview. The complete Legal Research Methodology notes — full unit, Exam Focus box and model questions — are in the PDF / full version. Get the complete notes →