“Problems hold greater value than solutions; they keep us ontologically alive and epistemologically sharp. History is not shaped by selfish interests, lofty ideals, or grand visions alone, but also by the perpetual encounters with problems that propel humans to ponder, act, and push the wheel of events toward a better future.” (Hiba, 2025) 1
I recently had a research discussion where I reflected on how I often bring humanities-based research methods to leadership, particularly problematisation. It left me considering how the questions I ask can sometimes differ from those used for problem-solving. And it led me to return to some earlier blogging conversations.
Problematisation is about challenging foundational assumptions and questioning the framings we might take for granted. 2 Whereas problem-solving often treats a problem as something to be defined in order to find solutions and fixes, problematisation requires us to step back and challenge the underlying assumptions, constructions, and framings of the problem itself. 3
My use of problematisation is certainly context-dependent. There are many other techniques and approaches I used in my research and leadership. However, I do love to draw on it for risk and strategy conversations.
Where’s the problem?
I was once on a panel where a question about library community engagement came up. In short, it concerned how to address the lack of engagement from a subset of a local community (framed as would-be beneficiaries of resources and services).
If I had immediately turned to a problem-solving response, I might have asked:
- What access barriers exist that can be addressed?
- Was there any community ‘consultation’ before service promotion?
- Is there a gap between staff perceptions of needs and community perceptions of needs?
All important and solution-oriented questions. However, in responding, I found myself turning the discussion toward problematising:
- Who had determined that this community subset would benefit (and how or why they would)?
- Who had identified this as a problem to address?
- Why did it matter whether this community subset did or didn’t engage?
- Whose interests were being served with this framing, and who would be empowered?
This might lead us to question whether there was a different problem to solve (that wasn’t located within the community itself) and whether there could be any unanticipated impact from this framing and the push to seek a solution.
A journal article title on the topic of problematisation captures my sentiment well: “If you don’t problematize it, you won’t see it, and you won’t understand it.”
Mind the gap
Turning back to research, problematisation has been positioned as an alternative to gap-spotting – the dominant approach to developing research questions. And some researchers posit that problematisation can offer more opportunities for new research ideas and critical insights.
And, amusingly, we’ve had (somewhat) similar ‘divides’ in libraries.
In 2014, Hugh Rundle wrote an article critiquing Joe Murphy’s proposition that libraries could adopt a “gap filler” role for the future. 4 In his writing, Hugh drew on David Lankes’ critique of libraries acting as remedial organisations for problems and deficits.
Arguably, the problem with gap filling isn’t that problems or gaps exist in the first place. It’s not that problems may require solutions. And it’s also not that libraries have the potential to fill gaps as facilitators, brokers, or similar intermediary terms.
The problem is that we miss asking: “who determines where the gap lies, and who determines how it is to be filled” (in the words of Hugh Rundle). This very question problematises the gaps and problems we encounter in communities and are drawn to solve.
Back to solutions
At this point, I’m thinking back to a blog post I wrote in 2024 titled ‘The problem with solutions,’ which Hugh wrote a response to titled ‘Don’t bring me solutions, bring me problems.’
As I wrote then, “I’m not a fan of creating problem-solution binaries” and prefer to lean into ‘cultures of inquiry’ to capture multiple perspectives. Of course, this approach doesn’t mean solutions never arise or that we should over-problematise. Rather, problematisation is one technique for opening up our inquiry and possible responses (including to different solutions).
I do, however, see the unease this line of inquiry can bring in spaces not accustomed to problematisation. “Where’s the solution? You didn’t provide one.”
More often than not, I observe such remarks in leadership spaces, and I’m not the only one to have noticed this. I have Paul Bower’s post bookmarked on how the phrase “what’s the solution?” can risk being a “thought-terminating cliche” in Board and Executive leadership. It’s described as insidious, in part, because solutions look constructive.
Problematisation
Perhaps the perceived problem with problematisation lies not only in the challenge it brings to familiar norms, efficiencies, and the status quo, but in the uncertainty it represents. Where gap spotting (and filling) can feel safer, less demanding, and conventional, problematisation challenges in a way that may be more demanding and ambitious. 5
Problematisation is not neat and tidy, or intended to be easily smoothed over. Rather than simplifying or reducing, it disrupts the problem itself and asks that we make implicit framings and assumptions explicit. And that’s not always something we’re comfortable with being disrupted.
None of this is to say that we stay in inquiry forever or that we evade decision-making. Problems should still push us to act. But, are we solving the right problem? Have we looked beneath the surface? Are we willing to sit with uncertainty? And, are we prepared to think about problems and the futures we imagine differently?
- Hiba, B. (2025). If you don’t problematize it, you won’t see it, and you won’t understand it. New Ideas in Psychology, 77, 101141. ↩︎
- In organisational behaviour research it’s been defined as “thinking differently about what we already know.”. ↩︎
- Looking beyond research contexts, problematisation has been adopted in public policy contexts, such as with Carol Bacchi’s WPR framework. The WPR framework (What’s the Problem Represented to be?) focuses on analysing how policies frame problems and bringing critical scrutiny of what is being defined as the problem. ↩︎
- This was well before my time in libraries. ↩︎
- Context dependent, of course. ↩︎