Emergent scholarship

Course Lessons

Problem decomposition

14 min read

Lesson overview

Objective: Develop critical evaluation capabilities for problem decomposition—building judgement about when and how different framings serve scholarly inquiry

Summary: This lesson completes the adaptation module by teaching systematic problem framing. You’ll learn to decompose complex problems through disciplinary and methodological lenses whilst developing judgement about when decomposition creates clarity versus when it creates unnecessary complexity.

Key habits:

  • Frame before investigating: Systematically explore how a problem could be framed before diving into literature or data
  • Critical framing evaluation: Assess whether decomposition reveals genuine blind spots or creates artificial complexity
  • Metacognitive awareness: Recognise your own disciplinary and methodological biases in how you naturally frame problems

The investigation-before-framing mistake

The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution.

Albert Einstein

Dr. Allen wants to study “why academics leave the profession.” She jumps straight to literature review. Searches “academic retention” and “faculty attrition.” Finds 50 relevant papers.

Three weeks later, she’s overwhelmed. The literature seems contradictory. She’s unclear what her actual research question is. She doesn’t know which methodological approach makes sense. Papers discuss labour markets, burnout, institutional structures, career identity, gender disparities, generational differences—everything connects to everything else.

What happened? She investigated before framing the problem systematically.

Is this about economics (labour markets and salary competition)? Psychology (burnout and motivation)? Sociology (institutional structures and power)? Education (professional identity formation)? Each framing leads to different literatures, different methods, different questions.

Without systematic framing, you either miss crucial dimensions or drown in undifferentiated complexity.

This lesson teaches: Frame problems systematically before investigating. More importantly, develop judgement about which framings serve your work versus which create complexity without clarity.

Framing capability assessment

Calibration insight: Most academics jump to investigation without systematic framing. This creates two problems: (1) missing important perspectives, (2) getting overwhelmed by undifferentiated complexity. Systematic decomposition prevents both—if you develop the judgement to use it appropriately.

Problem framing shapes inquiry

Before we explore decomposition techniques, understand why this matters:

How you frame a problem determines:

  • Which literatures you’ll find relevant
  • Which methods will make sense
  • What questions you’ll ask
  • What counts as an answer

Different framings aren’t just different perspectives on the same thing—they create genuinely different scholarly inquiries.

Example: “Why do academics leave?”

Economic framing: Labour market question about compensation competitiveness → Leads to: salary data, employment statistics, market analysis → Methods: quantitative analysis, regression models → Literature: labour economics, human capital theory

Psychological framing: Individual wellbeing question about burnout and motivation → Leads to: stress levels, job satisfaction, personal narratives → Methods: surveys, interviews, longitudinal tracking → Literature: occupational psychology, burnout research

Sociological framing: Structural question about institutional conditions → Leads to: workload policies, governance structures, power dynamics → Methods: institutional analysis, comparative studies → Literature: organisational sociology, academic labour studies

These aren’t three perspectives on the same question—they’re three different scholarly inquiries. Each is legitimate. None is complete.

The literacy capability: Not just “how to decompose problems” but “when decomposition serves scholarly work and how to evaluate its contribution.”

Disciplinary decomposition: Recognising your framing biases

Different disciplines frame the same problem differently—revealing assumptions you might not recognise as assumptions.

The approach

Prompt structure:

“I’m investigating [your problem]. How would researchers from [discipline 1], [discipline 2], and [discipline 3] frame this differently? What questions would each ask? What would each consider most important? What would each discipline likely overlook?”

Example:

“I’m investigating academic workload problems. How would economists, psychologists, and sociologists frame this? What would each discipline prioritise? What would each overlook?”

Faded practice: From observation to evaluation

Stage 1: Observe expert evaluation

Here’s how a scholar uses disciplinary decomposition whilst maintaining critical evaluation:

[Scholar’s problem]: Understanding why early-career academics leave

[Scholar’s prompt]: “How would economists, sociologists, and psychologists frame ‘early-career academic retention’ differently?”

[AI provides three framings]:

  • Economics: Optimisation problem about career opportunity costs
  • Sociology: Structural problem about institutional culture and gatekeeping
  • Psychology: Individual problem about identity fit and belonging

[Scholar evaluates critically]: “These feel somewhat stereotyped—economics isn’t just about money, psychology isn’t just about individuals. But they DO reveal blind spots. My own framing (sociological) might miss the genuine economic constraints people face and the psychological toll of not belonging. I’ve been treating this as purely a structural problem.”

[Scholar makes judgement]: “I’ll incorporate economic framing by examining alternative career trajectories and salary comparisons—that’s data I can access. I’ll incorporate psychological framing by asking about professional identity and belonging in my interviews. But my core framing stays sociological because institutional structures are what I can actually investigate with my methods and access.”

Notice:

  • Scholar questioned whether AI’s framings were stereotyped (critical evaluation)
  • Recognised genuine blind spots in own framing (metacognitive awareness)
  • Made deliberate choice about what to incorporate based on feasibility (contextual judgement)

Self-explanation

Why evaluate whether framings are stereotyped rather than just accepting them?

Show answer

AI might oversimplify disciplinary perspectives. Real economists consider structural constraints; real psychologists consider social context. If you accept stereotyped framings uncritically, you’re not gaining genuine cross-disciplinary insight—you’re collecting caricatures. Critical evaluation means assessing whether framings represent disciplines accurately.

Stage 2: Apply with critical evaluation

Pause and reflect

Did exploring multiple disciplinary framings help you understand your problem more comprehensively, or did it create complexity without improving clarity?

Methodological decomposition: Understanding what methods reveal

Different methods illuminate different aspects—and obscure others. Developing literacy means understanding what each approach shows and what it misses.

The approach

Prompt structure:

“For [your problem], what would I learn from: quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, longitudinal tracking, ethnographic observation, and document analysis? What does each method reveal that others don’t? What does each method miss?”

Example:

“For understanding why academics leave: What would surveys show that interviews miss? What would interviews reveal that surveys can’t? What would longitudinal data add? What limitations does each have?”

Pause and reflect

Has this decomposition helped you choose methods appropriately, or has it simply increased uncertainty without improving judgement?

Advanced framing approaches

Decision point: When decomposition helps versus hinders

Not all problems benefit from systematic decomposition. Let’s practice evaluating when it serves your work.

The scenario

Dr. Kim is studying “student engagement in online learning.” She spends 90 minutes systematically decomposing the problem: disciplinary framings (education, psychology, computer science, sociology), methodological framings (surveys, analytics, interviews, observation), temporal framings (before class, during, after, semester-long), conceptual framings (active vs passive, cognitive vs affective, individual vs social).

Two possible outcomes:

Pause and reflect

What determines whether decomposition helps or hinders? How do you decide?

Decision principle: Use systematic decomposition when:

  • Problem feels ill-defined or overwhelming
  • You’re not sure what you’re actually asking
  • You suspect you’re missing important perspectives
  • Initial investigation revealed undifferentiated complexity

Skip systematic decomposition when:

  • Question is already appropriately focused
  • You have clear disciplinary and methodological grounding
  • Time constraints make extended framing work impractical
  • Problem is straightforward, not genuinely complex

Activity

Reflection and commitment

Key takeaways

  • Problem framing shapes inquiry fundamentally: How you frame a problem determines which literatures you’ll find relevant, which methods make sense, what questions you’ll ask, and what counts as an answer. Different framings aren’t just perspectives on the same thing—they create genuinely different scholarly inquiries. Develop judgement about which framings serve your specific scholarly purposes.

  • Multiple framings can illuminate or overwhelm: Multiple decompositions can reveal blind spots single framings create—every framing illuminates some aspects whilst obscuring others. But more framings don’t automatically mean better understanding. Sometimes systematic decomposition creates overwhelm rather than clarity, especially when your initial framing was already appropriate. Developing literacy means building contextual judgement about when additional framings help and when they hinder.

  • Metacognitive awareness is the core capability: The most valuable outcome isn’t better problem framing—it’s increased awareness of your own framing patterns and biases. When you see how different disciplines frame the same problem, you recognise that your framing reflects assumptions you may not have been aware of. When you evaluate whether decomposition helped or hindered, you develop judgement about when techniques serve your work.

Your commitment

Pause and reflect

Based on this lesson, what complex problem will you approach through systematic framing before investigating? How will you evaluate whether decomposition helps or creates unnecessary complexity? Document this commitment in your Action Journal.

Looking ahead

You’ve completed the adaptation module, developing critical evaluation, contextual judgement, and metacognitive awareness. The transformation lessons build on this foundation to develop sophisticated professional judgement about AI engagement that can’t be reduced to techniques.

Resources

  • Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.

Graph View