Frame the Problem
The first step in understanding a problem is to frame it, a process that
here involves (a) providing a description of the problem, and (b)
identifying relevant context moderators. An effective frame should
provide sufficient detail to encompass the scope of the problem, yet
still be concise. It should describe the problem, its scope, and its
impact. Consistent with the hermeneutic orientation described in the
previous section, direct, tangible experiences are called upon here.
Even someone with no direct experience with the problem begins with
transferable knowledge from similar problems and preconceptions that
shape initial understanding, as well as assumptions and biases that
mediate interpretations of prior knowledge \citep{Maxwell}. A well
articulated problem frame provides transparency into the researcher’s
decision path when determining how to analyze and ultimately address the
problem \citep{Munn-Giddings}. This can be critical when evaluating the
viability of interventions for use in another context.
The act of describing involves the researcher’s initial schema in
meaning construction \citep{Langer}, and begins the process of
determining what is important about the problem within its situated
context. A problem in one place may contain elements that are of less
importance in another; thus, an effective framing lays down a marker for
what the researcher believes to be important. Context is central to
this. An intervention may prove more or less effective based on context \citep*{VanBavel};
therefore, explicating the relevant moderators allows the researcher to
be intentional about incorporating them into the problem analysis.
Problems addressed during action research are wide ranging; and
constraining them may involve subjective decisions about what is in and
what is out of scope. A well-articulated description of the problem
provides a rationale for these decisions, and a foundation for the
remaining analysis that helps avoid scope creep during the research
phase \citep*{Putman}. A description should also constrain the
problem to elements that can be realistically addressed with the
resources available to the researcher.
Deconstruct the Problem
With the frame in place, analysis now moves to deconstructing the
problem. During this phase, the problem is broken into smaller elements
that reveal its perceived root causes. This occurs iteratively across
two nested levels. The first is the identification of factors. Factors
are broad categories that define and delineate the main causes of the
problem. These can be thought of as the trunk of the metaphorical tree.
Identified factors are further deconstructed into drivers. If factors
are the trunk, then drivers are the roots below the trunk. More
precisely, drivers are constituent elements of the factors that specify
the conditions, actions, or events that are believed to cause the
problem. Drivers are the central focus of the analysis because they
reveal and interpret the root causes of the problem, thus providing
areas of focus for corrective action through later research.
Identified drivers are usually unique to each factor and do not overlap.
Overlapping drivers are an indication that their associated factors are
too similar to one another. When considering the drivers, it is
important to remember that this analysis is a heuristic of the problem,
and that the characteristics of the drivers identified in the analysis
will be highly sensitive to contextual factors and researcher
interpretation. Given this understanding, an analysis of the same
problem will likely generate different drivers if done by another
researcher, or even the same researcher across multiple sites. A nominal
analysis will likely generate two factors with three drivers each,
assuming the problem has been appropriately framed. An off-nominal
number of elements indicates that the frame of the problem should be
revisited.