How to Convert a Doctoral Research Problem into a Publishable Argument

Turning a research problem, which is usually broad, explore-driven, and dissertation-based, into a clear, convincing and scholarly argument is one of the most prevalent difficulties doctoral researchers have to deal with. Although doctoral issues are aimed to manifest their research competence and their depth, journal articles require concentration, originality, and precision of argumentation. Numerous well-done doctoral research papers fail to get published not due to lack of quality research, but because the issue has not been reformulated into a convincing academic case.

This paper will describe the method by which a doctoral research problem can be translated into a publishable argument. It describes the conceptual transformation which is needed, the alteration of the structure, and strategic choices which differentiate a thesis-based inquiry and an article-ready argument.

Understanding the Difference: Research Problem vs. Publishable Argument

The doctoral research problem is generally broad. It aims to reveal knowledge gaps, defend long-term research, and show rigor in the methodology. It is done to demonstrate that the researcher is capable of independent design and conducting of a significant study.

A publishable argument on the other hand is a concise and assertive argument. It is not just the identification of a problem; it takes a stand in an already existing scholarly debate and provides evidence to prove this stand. Journals are not after all that which you have found out, but that which you are arguing and why it is a point at this time.

In simple terms:

• A doctoral problem is a question that is posed:What should be researched and why?
• A publishable argument provides answers to: What I am claiming, and how do I use evidence to alter existing knowledge? 

The initial and the most significant step is the recognition of this difference.

Step 1: Reduce the Problem to One Academic Discussion.

Problems in doctoral research may cut across a number of themes, variables, or theoretical perspectives. Though this breadth is fitting in a dissertation, a journal article has to address one main scholarly discussion. 

To narrow your problem, ask:

• What was the greatest or most surprising finding of my doctoral research? 
• What is the aspect that directly answers an already existing debate in the literature? 
• What insight can be isolated out of the entire dissertation context?

As an illustration, the digital transformation, organizational culture, leadership styles and performance of employees may be studied within a doctoral problem. An argument that can be published can only be based on the mediating role of transformational leadership on the results of digital adoption among SMEs.

Loss of rigor is narrowing, a gain of clarity.

Step 2: Transition between Exploration and Position-Taking. 

Doctoral writing is frequently tentative, speculative and extremely conditional. Writing journals is not a simple task that does not demand intellectual confidence. Reviewers and editors want authors to give a definite position.

In order to transform a problem into an argument: 

• Substitute the questions of exploration with the claims.
• Changing this study examines to this article argues.
• Recognize what your study contributes, subverts, or reformulates.

A feeble, issue-oriented statement:

The research paper is based on the connection between implementation of policy and institutional effectiveness.

A more convincing, argumentative statement: 

• The article suggests that the main obstacle to institutional effectiveness is inconsistent policy interpretation and not resource constraints.”
• The second quote indicates clearly that it is an argument rather than an investigation. 

Step 3: Find the Contribution Explicit.

Publishable argument should introduce some recognizable contribution. The following are some of the common categories of contributions: Theoretical: Building up, developing, or disputing an already existing theory. 

• Empirical: The presentation of new information or data in low-researched situations.
• Methodological: The presentation or the justification of a new research method. 
• Practical/Policy: Providing knowledge that has practical implications. The dissertation of doctoral works tends to obstruct contributions in multiple chapters. The contribution should be explicit, early and repeated in order to be published.

Ask yourself: 

1. What may I not say with some confidence before my study? 
2. What is the fallacy that my research corrects?
3. What is the new viewpoint that my study offers? 

This is the contribution that you should base your argument on.

Step 4: Restate the Literature Review as a Fight.

Literature reviews in dissertation seek completeness. They seek positioning in journal papers.

Rather than reviewing the statements made by others use the literature to:

1. Determine friction, differences, or blindness.
2. Demonstrate the points of disagreement between scholars or the lack of evidence.
3. Give room to your argument to get in.

A refutation to be published does not appear as a result of agreement, but as a result of academic conflict. What you would want your literature review to make people believe is: Yes, there is something to be determined.

This re-framing converts the doctoral problem to a case to argue.

Step 5: Get Methods into View with the Argument, but Not the Degree.

In the doctoral work, methods tend to be explained in a very detailed way so that they can be examined. Journal articles must have strategic sufficiency that is not too much or too little.

More to the point, the methods would need to be conceptualized as serving the argument, rather than satisfying the methodological rigor.

For example: Why do you think your approach is specifically appropriate to the testing of your claim?

Point out methodology decisions that reinforce your position.

Highlight strength in areas where the reviewers will be doubtful.

Such transformation makes sure that the approaches support the argument instead of taking it into the limelight.

Step 6: Choose Findings which develop the Claim.

Releasing data is one of the most challenging processes of doctoral researchers. A dissertation has it all; an article has just the necessary to further the argument. 

When selecting findings: 

• Question Which findings either confirm or complicate your main point.
• Filter away tangential or descriptive outputs which do not advance the argument.
• Make current results in an anticipatory manner. The point made is not the amount of results, but the strategy.

Step 7: Raise Discussion of Results to Meaning.

Many doctoral articles do not convince in the discussion section. It is too commonly a repetition of results rather than an interpretation of their meaning. 

The powerful argumentative discussion: Demonstrates the relevance of the findings in theory. Demonstrates the way in which they change the current discussions.

Accepts limitations without damaging the main argument.

Presents proposals of future research that makes logical continuation of the argument. 

Here is where the doctoral problem is now completely changed into a scholarly position.

Step 8: Recast Introduction Final. 

The introduction should be written after the argument is clear yet it comes first.

A good opening to the article:

• .Brings about the larger academic situation. 
• .Determines a given unresolved problem.
• .Makes a definite argument or claim.
• .Concisely signifies the contribution. 

The introduction when properly done makes one feel the reason why this article has been given the space in the journal.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Attempting to publish the dissertation chapter in its purest form.

Keeping too much background or definition.

Shy to make strong statements in fear of criticism.

Burdening the article with several points.

Seeing publication as report writing and not as persuasion.

Awareness of these pitfalls is capable of enhancing chances of acceptance greatly.

Conclusion

It is not a question of cutting a thesis to fit in a publishable argument that the argument transforms a doctoral research problem but rather reconceptualizes purpose. Doctoral research demonstrates capacity; journal articles promote knowledge using argumentation.

 Nicholson et al. (2019) suggest that as doctoral researchers focus on a specific problem, maintain their position, communicate their contribution, redefine the literature, and apply evidence strategically, they can effectively shift their writing to journalism. Such a transformation does not only enhance the success of publications, but it is also a pivotal transition in the process of academic identity-building: It is not the transition between a researcher-in-training and a contributing scholar.