are freguently perceptions and mental constructs without empirical referents.
There are gradations of problems, research problems, researchable problems

and problems that interest people with differing kinds of research commitments.
For research in general, there is no single standard and no single finishing
line. lLikewise, there is no guarantee of instant concensus by observant,

right thinking and well informed people even after something has been called

a problem. fEgually, some of the most paralyzing concerns such as originality,
significance, conclusiveness, generalizeability and addition or contribution
to a body of knowledge are of major importance but reasonable and relative in
the context of any particular project. Preoccupation with generalization at

a universal level has lately shown signs of yielding to generalizations in

the form of explaining and predicting patterns and variations. The canon

that research should be additive simply means that all the connections should
be established so that the addition posited at the start and the sum at the
end may be evident for others to judge. The overwhelming volume of material
on philosophy of science, research design and hypothesis testing, mathematical
and statistical technigue, form and style in reporting research, solving
problems and getting answers probably obscures the relative paucity of material
on finding problems, framing guestions and generating hypotheses in the first
place. Categorization of diverse research strategies as to their approprjiate-
ness for various guestions, their strengths and limitations and the subseguent
problems that accompany each is useful.  Extending that categorization to
incorporate a prestige pecking order associated with each choice may be less
functional especially if it leads people to pick inappropriate topic or method.
It is eminently desirable and reasonable to assure balance between the demands

inherent in a given research proposal and the capacities of the person who is

m9