Does Framing the Problem Impact the Solution?

Let's completely ignore the fact that I haven't posted in a while and jump right in.

One of my very first posts dealt with the idea of wicked problems -- problems which do not lend themselves to simple analysis or solution. Part of the reason that they are wicked is that there is no single, objectively appropriate way to frame the problem.

A tactic often used in debates or press conferences by politicians is answer the question that you want to answer, not necessarily the question that was asked. (Q: "Mr. Politician, is it true that you paid someone to attend classes and take exams on your behalf when you were in college?" A: "Let me tell you about our great community reinvestment plan.")

But far short of outright evasion, it is likely that we (intentionally or otherwise) often artificially limit the search space for a solution by how we initially frame the problem.

Imagine a departmental meeting to discuss underwhelming student performance. Would the debate and subsequent recommendations differ depending on how the topic was introduced?

• Educational outcomes are less robust than we expected. What can we do to increase the use of technology in the classroom?
• Educational outcomes are less robust than we expected. What can we do to encourage students to be more engaged with course content?
• Educational outcomes are less robust than we expected. How can improve our recruiting efforts to ensure a more academically prepared incoming class in the future?
• Educational outcomes are less robust than we expected. How can we provide better training to our teaching assistants?    

If an unexamined assumption is built into the question, it is only natural to assume that it will at least partially shape the responses that one will receive. In other words, refusing to accept the premise of a question can sometimes lead to more fruitful discussion.