The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization?
Abstract
This article examines ways of constructing research questions from existing literature, which are likely to promote the development of interesting and influential theories. We review 52 articles in organization studies and develop a typology of how researchers construct their research questions from existing literature. The most common way across paradigmatic camps is to spot various ‘gaps’ in the literature and, based on that, to formulate specific research questions. The dominance of gap-spotting is surprising, given it is increasingly recognized that theory is made interesting and influential when it challenges assumptions that underlie existing literature. The article discusses why assumption-challenging approaches are rare, and it identifies a range of social norms that favour gap-spotting. Finally, the article proposes some ways of constructing research questions that move beyond gap-spotting, and discusses how these ways are likely to promote more interesting and significant theories.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bruner, J. (1996) · doi:10.4159/9780674251083 · Cited by 6,231
The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason
Bourdieu, P. (1975) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901847501400602 · Cited by 1,483
That's Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology
Davis, M. S. (1971) · Philosophy of the Social Sciences · doi:10.1177/004839317100100211 · Cited by 1,219
What makes management research interesting and why does it matter?
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20785494 · Cited by 432
Hargens, L. L. (2000) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657516 · Cited by 211
Cited by
Jabbour, C. J. C., Jabbour, A. B. L. D. S., Sarkis, J., & Filho, M. G. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.010 · Cited by 576
Critical success factors of green innovation: Technology, organization and environment readiness
Zhang, Y., Sun, J., Yang, Z., & Wang, Y. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121701 · Cited by 508
Barriers to implementing reverse logistics in South Australian construction organisations
Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Hosseini, M. R., & Lehmann, S. (2015) · Supply Chain Management: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/scm-10-2014-0325 · Cited by 121
(2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 87
Current status and emerging trends on the adaptive reuse of buildings: a bibliometric analysis
Owojori, O., Okoro, C., & Chileshe, N. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su132111646 · Cited by 53
Mobilising new frontiers in digital transformation research: A problematization review
Ashrafi, A., Constantinides, P., Mehandjiev, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12531 · Cited by 33
“…research trajectories makes unique “ in-house assumptions ” — that is, assumptions accepted as unproblematic by a particular school of thought (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011) — about the nature of digital technologies, but also about the ways in which organisations, groups and individuals interact…”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M.
- Venue
- Organization
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-07-15
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-44
- ISSN
- 1350-5084 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7323
- OpenAlex
- W2171933098
- Cited by
- 781
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 24.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.