Problem/Gap/Hook

Building a Program of Research: Practical Insights for Early Career Researchers

Introduction

Transitioning from project-based thinking (typical at the master’s level) to the programmatic thinking needed in an early career researcher (ECR) role is essential, and your PhD journey is designed to facilitate this shift. Rather than viewing research as isolated projects, programmatic thinking helps you envision a series of interconnected studies contributing to a long-term research goal. As a PhD researcher, mastering these skills will support your academic and practical contributions far beyond your doctoral studies.

The MRC Framework as a Guide

The MRC framework, though traditionally applied in healthcare, is adaptable to other fields and offers a structured approach to programmatic research through four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation, and implementation. (I am using this framework in our course for demonstrative purposes only). This framework not only organizes your work but ensures that each research phase builds upon the previous one, maintaining focus on an overarching goal. You’ve already applied the MRC framework in Assignments 1 and 2, where you developed and sequenced projects within it. Now, we’ll expand to articulate the significance of each phase, using the problem/gap/hook heuristic and enhancing your ability to “pitch” both individual phases and the entire program.

The Problem/Gap/Hook Heuristic

The problem/gap/hook heuristic is a strategy to highlight why each phase of your research is necessary and relevant. Based on my review of your assignments, this is an area where further development would strengthen your work. You’ll use this approach in various contexts, from publications to grant proposals. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Problem: State an existing issue or need in the field that aligns with current research interests.

2. Gap: Identify what is unknown or under-explored, demonstrating that knowledge or solutions are lacking.

3. Hook: Emphasize why addressing this gap is essential. This is your “pitch,” where you convince readers or funders that your research matters.

Examples of Problem/Gap/Hook

Consider Moulton et al. (2007), which I introduced in an earlier presentation, as an example of a strong problem/gap/hook. Here’s how it unfolds:

• Problem: Continuing medical education (CME) is essential, but traditional methods may not lead to effective, lasting knowledge retention among physicians.

• Gap: Limited studies have investigated the effects of distributed practice on CME outcomes, leaving us unsure if this approach improves long-term knowledge retention.

• Hook: Given the demand for effective CME to support high-quality patient care, understanding if distributed practice enhances retention could transform CME delivery, benefiting patient outcomes.

Extending This Example

Taking a Step Back: Assuming one of the assessment tools used in the article was invalid, a preceding phase would involve developing and testing a valid assessment instrument. The problem/gap/hook might look like this:

• Problem: Assessing CME effectiveness is crucial, but existing tools may lack validity.

• Gap: A reliable assessment tool specific to CME knowledge retention is missing, hindering our ability to measure distributed practice effects accurately.

• Hook: Developing a validated tool would provide essential insights into CME impact, enabling researchers to rigorously measure the effectiveness of distributed practice.

For a Subsequent Phase: If you were to implement CME courses based on distributed practice into real-world settings, the problem/gap/hook might look like this:

• Problem: CME programs designed around distributed practice are not yet implemented broadly in clinical practice, potentially missing benefits for medical professionals and patient care.

• Gap: Research is needed to understand how distributed practice CME can be integrated into standard practice across clinical settings.

• Hook: Implementing these findings would allow for widespread, sustainable improvements in medical education, directly benefiting healthcare quality.

These examples illustrate how the problem/gap/hook heuristic (and an effective “pitch,” the presentation equivalent to a hook in a grant proposal) should be applied both to the overall research program and each phase or project. Each component needs to be presented as critically important on its own.

Applying This in Your Assignments

In your upcoming assignments, use the problem/gap/hook heuristic to frame both the program (final assignment) and project levels (next assignment). Tailor your pitch (the next presentation) to emphasize the relevance of each phase. Remember, depending on funding scope, some funders may focus on the program’s broader goals, while others may be interested in a specific project. Your ability to articulate both is essential.

Language for Articulating Programmatic Continuity

When linking phases within your program, consider how each phase builds toward the next. This continuity is crucial, whether applying for a programmatic grant, such as CIHR, where some phases may be funded while others require completion, or smaller grants, such as MITACS, which may support individual phases due to limited scope or emerging needs. Here’s some sample language:

• "This phase establishes a foundation for subsequent studies by [explain how it contributes, e.g., developing a valid measurement tool]. Without this groundwork, later phases would lack the accuracy and rigor needed for meaningful results."

• "Building from our findings in the previous phase, this study will [describe the transition, e.g., ‘shift focus to implementation to ensure practical application of theoretical results in clinical settings’]. This continuity ensures that each project builds toward our overarching research goal."

Real-World Constraints

Programmatic research often involves adapting to constraints, such as limited funding, time pressures, or evolving research questions. These constraints shape your projects and the decisions you make. Here are ways to reflect this in your research planning and and disseminating:

• Budgeting Limitations: “Given limited resources, this phase will focus on developing a scalable prototype, allowing for adjustments based on feedback in the next phase.”

• Time Constraints: “With a limited timeline, this study will concentrate on high-impact areas identified in the previous phase, ensuring feasible, actionable results that pave the way for further exploration.”

• Adaptation and Iteration: “This phase will serve as a pilot, with findings used to refine and tailor the next stage of the program, ensuring that each step is responsive to real-world conditions.”

Conclusion and Linking Back to Course Objectives

By shifting from project-based to programmatic thinking, you are developing an essential skill set for ECRs, one that emphasizes continuity, significance, and impact across research stages. Using the MRC framework to structure your work and the problem/gap/hook heuristic to communicate its relevance, you’ll approach your research as part of a larger program. This course emphasizes research process-oriented frameworks and using the problem/gap/hook approach to structure and communicate research across phases.

While our primary course focus remains on methods and methodologies, many of which are health sciences-specific and grounded in data and technology, we are also dedicating significant time to these frameworks and strategies. Developing a research mindset and the ability to package research effectively transcends disciplines, providing you with a durable skill set. These programmatic thinking skills, integrated with field-specific methods, will set you apart as a well-rounded researcher capable of framing, justifying, and sustaining your research in any context.