In several instances during Ph.D. defences—whether at the proposal approval stage, biannual progress reviews, or final evaluation—referees often concentrate primarily on technical details, such as defining parameters or framing hypotheses. While these aspects are undoubtedly important, research should not be reduced to a mere exercise in perfecting operational definitions.

The real focus must be on the researcher’s engagement with the research problem itself—understanding what is being explored, why it matters, and how the investigation is structured. Only when the conceptual framework is clear can hypotheses and methodologies be logically and meaningfully developed.

Reversing this natural order—by starting with precise definitions of variables before clarifying the broader research intent—risks narrowing the researcher’s vision and detaching the work from its intellectual purpose.

An effective approach begins with a deep examination of the problem, moving from Why (the rationale) to What (the research questions), then to How (the methodology), and finally to How Much (the extent to which objectives are achieved). This sequence preserves the integrity of the research and ensures that technical precision serves, rather than dictates, scholarly inquiry.

Why → What → How → How Much

1. Why– The Rationale Identify the problem’s significance.
   Justify its relevance to the field.
   Connect it with theoretical gaps or practical needs.
2. What– Research Questions & Objectives Define the core questions.
   Outline primary and secondary objectives.
   Specify the scope and limitations.
3. How Methodology & Design Select research design (qualitative, quantitative, mixed).
   Identify parameters and operational definitions.
   Determine sampling, tools, and data collection methods.
4. How Much Achievement & Evaluation Analyse results against objectives.
   Assess contribution to theory/practice.
   Reflect on implications, limitations, and future directions.