“Problem-Oriented Research Core in Education: From Idea to Action”

Statement of the Problem and Rationale for Implementation

Research conducted on education in our country is often steered toward clichéd topics that not only fail to untangle any of the real knots of the education system's problems, but have also, in a sense, led to the waste of scientific and human capital. This is while the field of education grapples daily with hundreds of concrete, tangible issues—issues with which teachers, administrators, students, and parents are engaged, yet which never find the opportunity to be transformed into a precise research question. The main cause of this gap can be traced to the absence of a systematic bridge between researchers and the field of education. On the one hand, academic researchers and students interested in applied research lack access to real issues, and on the other, the specialists and experts working in administrative offices who are familiar with these issues lack the opportunity or the necessary platform to design research based upon them. As a result, a wealth of scientific capacity remains unused, and educational problems persist in full force.

Yet this very situation has also placed a golden opportunity before us. Within the body of the education organization, there are specialized and educated personnel who possess both a command of field issues and the ability for scientific analysis and problem-framing. Outside the administration, there are also many researchers, students, and professors who have the motivation to conduct impactful, problem-oriented research—if only real and prioritized issues were made accessible to them. The solution to this predicament is the creation of a "facilitating research core" within the Teacher Research Institute. This core is not a costly, bureaucratic research center, but rather an agile, mission-driven team whose primary function is to "build a bridge" between the problem and the researcher. The work of this core will be to identify the real issues of education, transform them into precise and compelling research questions, publicly disseminate these questions among the scientific community, and, ultimately, utilize the research results to solve executive problems. This entire process is carried out with minimal cost and by using the existing capacity of personnel within the administration—something that can put the name of this research institute on the map as a novel model in the management of educational research in the country.

Vision and Mission

Our vision is to create an open and free research ecosystem in which solving education's problems is transformed from a case-by-case, intermittent activity into a widespread scientific movement. A movement in which the researcher, teacher, expert, and student all participate in a living, dynamic current aimed at improving the field of education, and the result of this participation is seen not in the form of archived reports, but in the field of action and in schools. To realize this vision, the research core is tasked with extracting the real, high-priority issues of the education system from the heart of the school, the classroom, and the teacher-student interaction. These issues must be derived from collaborative meetings with teachers, the analysis of field documents, and the continuous monitoring of daily challenges—not from the mere repetition of the worn-out topics of previous research. After identification, the core's main task is to transform these raw issues into precise, clear, and compelling research questions. Questions that are, from a methodological standpoint, researchable, and also stimulate the researcher's motivation to enter the field. A good problem, if not framed as a proper question, will never be answered; and this is precisely the missing element the core is meant to gift to researchers.

In the next step, these research questions will be made freely and openly available to all interested researchers. There will be no monopoly; any researcher inside or outside the organization can choose one of the questions and begin their own research. The core is not an owner of the problem, but its facilitator and disseminator. However, the core's work does not end with the publication of the questions. The core team provides intellectual support and free scientific consultation to researchers throughout the entire research path. This support can take the form of introducing resources, critiquing a proposal, or assisting in the design of research tools. All of this is done without a single Rial of the administration's budget being moved, relying solely on the knowledge and experience of the core members. And finally, the core's mission is complete when the results of the conducted research are transformed into executive solutions and amendable policies within the administration. Every piece of research must be able to untie at least one small knot from the field of action; and the core will serve as the communicative bridge between that result and the executive units. In this way, the "problem-to-solution" cycle is completed for the first time within an open research ecosystem.

Structure and Composition of the Core

The structure of the proposed research core will consist of three committed and specialized graduates in the fields of humanities and education, all of whom will be selected from among the teachers of the region. The director of this core will be appointed by the esteemed head of the Research Institute and will be responsible for establishing and regularly convening meetings; these meetings can be held at specific, fixed intervals, and provision has been made for extraordinary sessions if needed and upon the request of researchers or executive units of the administration. The other two members of the core will be selected by the core director, with the approval of the head of the Research Institute, from among interested and specialized colleagues. This three-person composition, while possessing the necessary agility and efficiency, will also have sufficient flexibility to utilize specialized consultants in various fields, without the need for extensive organization or new financial resources.

Activity Process and Cycle (Step-by-Step)

Step One: Problem Identification: The process of problem identification in the research core is pursued through three parallel and complementary pathways. First, holding field meetings and targeted conversations with teachers, school principals, educational experts, and parents; for no one has felt the real issues of education as closely as these field actors. Second, analyzing and examining upstream documents such as the Fundamental Transformation Document, the country's Comprehensive Scientific Plan, as well as internal and external evaluation reports, which can reveal the gap between the current and desired states. Third, the continuous monitoring of the day's educational issues in the media, social networks, and public discourse of society; a space where many forgotten or neglected concerns are reflected in public opinion before they are expressed in expert language. The combination of these three realms—field-based, document-based, and media-based—provides a realistic and multidimensional picture of the research priorities of education.

Step Two: Problem-Framing and Question Formulation: The second step, which is considered one of the most sensitive stages of the research core's work, is "Problem-Framing and Question Formulation." In this stage, the raw and scattered problems collected from the education field, upstream documents, and media must be translated into the language of research. The first action on this path is to transform each problem into a coherent and clear "problem statement"; a text that, while detailing the dimensions of the problem, also briefly explains its roots and consequences and distinguishes the boundaries of the problem from other similar phenomena. After that, the core members, in collaboration with specialized consultants, design precise, deep, and researchable research questions based on each problem statement; questions that have the potential to be turned into a research proposal and can be answered by the researcher within the framework of scientific methods. Finally, all the questions produced are categorized based on specialized areas of education: primary education, secondary education, technical and vocational training, educational equity, teacher training, social harms, educational management, technology in education, and other priority areas. This systematic classification helps researchers select a topic suited to their expertise and also places a clear roadmap of the educational system's research gaps before administrators and policymakers.

Step Three: Publication and Call for Participation: The third step is dedicated to "Publication and Call for Participation," where the research core moves beyond the intra-organizational space and invites the scientific community to participate. At this stage, the bank of formulated research questions, the product of weeks of systematic problem identification and problem-framing, is published on the official website of the administration and simultaneously republished through credible scientific networks, specialized channels, and university groups throughout the country. This public release takes place without any restrictions or cumbersome administrative formalities to ensure maximum access for all interested researchers. Following this, the core invites graduate students, university professors, independent researchers, and even teacher-researchers through a nationwide call to select one or more questions from this bank for their research. The main emphasis of this call is on "free and voluntary participation"; meaning no financial contract or employment obligation is concluded between the researchers and the administration, and the main motivation for participants will be an interest in solving the real issues of the educational system, producing applicable knowledge, and benefiting from the scientific support of a credible institution. This model of participation, while preserving the researcher's independence, enables broad and low-cost collaboration with thousands of eager researchers across the country.

Step Four: Support and Consultation: Step four is dedicated to "Support and Consultation," where the research core plays its facilitating role in accompanying researchers. When a researcher chooses one of the questions from the bank for their work, the core will be at their side during all stages of research design and provides completely free scientific and methodological consultations. This consultation can range from assistance in writing a proposal and formulating the theoretical framework, to selecting the appropriate research method, designing data collection tools, and validating findings. In addition, the core, utilizing available scientific resources, introduces the relevant research background for each problem to researchers, freeing them from scattered and time-consuming searches among a mass of irrelevant articles. Also, if the researcher wishes, the core can optionally, and by mutual agreement, follow up on the research process in various stages and provide interim feedback, without the slightest interference in the researcher's intellectual independence or the final content of their work. All this support is designed with the belief that the best research is born when the researcher knows a supportive and compassionate guide stands by them on the difficult path of investigation.

Step Five: Evaluation and Utilization: The fifth and final step is the "Evaluation and Utilization" stage, where research exits the circle of mere knowledge production and returns to the problem-solving cycle. At this stage, the research core collects the results of the completed studies and judges them with a special focus on the criterion of "applicability"; meaning the degree of executive feasibility of the findings, their compatibility with the real context of education, and their capacity to be transformed into practical solutions will be the most important evaluation criteria. Then, the core members, in collaboration with the researcher, translate the research findings into the language of specific, clear, and step-by-step executive solutions—solutions that different units of the administration can directly employ in their ongoing processes, policymaking, or annual plans. These solutions are provided as feedback to the relevant units in the administration in the form of short reports, executive worksheets, or brainstorming sessions, and the core will follow up on the degree of their effectiveness in improving processes. Finally, the most prominent and successful studies that have led to practical solutions are documented and published as a "successful model of problem-oriented research" to not only introduce the capacity of the research core, but also to pave the way more smoothly for subsequent researchers. In this way, the "problem-to-solution" cycle is completed for the first time in an open and low-cost research ecosystem.

Benefits and Achievements (For the Director and the Administration)

For the Director of the Research Institute: The problem-oriented research core provides a rare opportunity for the Research Institute's director to transcend routine, daily management and solidify their role as a pioneer of a novel research management model in the country. This plan places the director at the center of a scientific and executive transformation, designed not on the basis of costly and unattainable promises, but on the intelligent utilization of existing capacities. Registering such a successful experience in one's management record will not only demonstrate the power of problem recognition and creativity in solving it but will also count as a lasting testament to the ability to create real change in the country's administrative and research system. Beyond this, the adoption and implementation of this plan elevates the Research Institute's status from a primarily administrative entity to a "National Reference for Problem-Solving in Education"; a place where academics, teachers, and policymakers view it as a field-based think tank and a credible source of real issues. This is how an intelligent managerial decision can tie the name of a research institute and its director to a scientific and impactful movement for years to come.

For the Administration: The problem-oriented research core provides the administration with an intelligent strategy for securing "inexpensive, yet deep and applicable research." With this model, the administration can benefit from the vast and dispersed capacity of the country's scientific community without incurring costs for expensive research contracts or hiring new researchers; a capacity that, until now, remained untapped due to the lack of a connecting bridge. The chronic and unresolved problems with which the education system has grappled for years are now, with minimal financial resources and by relying solely on the knowledge, motivation, and time of volunteer researchers, examined and root-caused one by one, moving closer to actionable solutions. This mutual interaction with universities and research centers also opens a new horizon of scientific collaborations, pulling the Research Institute out of administrative isolation and returning it to the heart of the country's knowledge production flow. But perhaps the most valuable internal achievement of this core is the cultivation and strengthening of a research spirit among the teachers and personnel of the administration itself; colleagues who previously may have seen themselves merely as executors of regulations can now, in the capacity of problem-identifier, scientific advisor, or even researcher, participate in solving the real issues of the educational field and derive new motivation and self-confidence from this participation.

For Researchers: The problem-oriented research core rescues researchers from the bottleneck of repetitive topics with no field output and, for the first time, puts the real and living issues of the country's educational system at their disposal. The researcher no longer needs to spend weeks identifying a problem or designing a question that serves the community; the core's question bank opens a clear and prioritized roadmap of the real needs of education before them. When a researcher begins their work with the scientific backing of a credible and official authority like the ministry's Research Institute, they find the opportunity to publish results in reputable journals, present at specialized conferences, and turn their thesis or article into an impactful scientific report—with the credibility of the Research Institute's name behind it. But the deepest motivation that drives the researcher on this path is beyond scientific credibility or a résumé; they can now participate in solving a national problem and see the result of their research not on an archive shelf, but in the field of action and in improving the educational conditions of the children of this land. This was the very missing element the dedicated researcher had been seeking for years.

Implementation Requirements (Required Resources)

One of the most important strengths of the problem-oriented research core plan is its intelligent minimalism in execution requirements; this plan is designed with the belief that transformation is not necessarily costly, but rather the result of correctly identifying opportunities and optimally utilizing what one already has. In terms of human resources, the core has no need for new hiring or the loading of heavy personnel budgets and commences work simply by utilizing the capacity of three existing specialized and educated staff members, an activity that is also defined in line with their organizational duties. For physical space, the most minimal facilities in a corner of the Teacher Research Institute suffice; for the core is not intended to be a parallel organization, but an intelligent and agile network within the existing structure. In the domain of cyberspace, only a page for introducing and publishing the question bank on the administration's website, an information channel on domestic messengers, and an official email for communicating with researchers are needed—all of which are achievable with minimal cost, even zero Rials. The overall estimate of the financial resources required for this plan is also "near zero"; because all the core's activities, from problem identification and problem-framing to consultation and adjudication, are carried out with the intrinsic motivation of the members on a voluntary basis, and no financial contracts are concluded with external researchers. In summary, this plan proves that the path to solving enormous educational problems can be paved with modest means, but with a lofty vision and intelligent design.

Success Evaluation Indicators

The measurement of the problem-oriented research core's success, unlike many administrative plans that merely suffice with quantitative statistics of outputs, is based on a balance between "quantity" and "quality" to provide a more realistic picture of the plan's depth and impact. The first indicator is the "number of real problems identified and published," but sheer number is not the point; what matters is the degree of originality, priority, and path-breaking potential of the published issues and their relevance to the real needs of the education field. The second indicator is the "number and diversity of participating researchers," including internal staff and external researchers, but beyond the number of individuals, their level of expertise, research background, and the relevance of their field of work to the chosen issue are also considered. The third indicator is the "number of completed studies and received reports," but alongside quantity, the quality of the reports is judged in terms of methodological coherence, depth of analysis, innovation in findings, and scientific trustworthiness. The fourth and most sensitive indicator is the "number and quality of extracted executive solutions," meaning whether the proposed solutions are specific, locally derived, cost-effective, and have the capacity to be implemented in the existing structure, or whether they remain merely at the level of general, idealistic recommendations. Finally, the fifth indicator is the "number and degree of impact of executive units' references to the core's results"; this indicator is not limited to the number of citations but also encompasses the actual application of findings in directives, regulations, operational plans, and the ongoing processes of the administration. Thus, the core's evaluation will always be based on this fundamental question: "Has this research managed to bring a real problem closer to a practical solution?"

Plan of Initial Steps (For Immediate Start)

For an immediate start without wasting time, the research core should be designed in the form of an "agile and experimental movement" so that the Research Institute's director can be assured of its low opportunity cost, and also so the first cycle of problem identification to the call for participation can be executed in the shortest possible time. After presenting the plan and title to the director of the city's Teacher Research Institute, the first step is to hold a 30-minute briefing session with the director of the city's Department of Education and obtain principled agreement for the experimental implementation of the plan. The emphasis of this session will be on it being "cost-free," "using existing personnel," and having "the ability to be stopped at any stage." The second step is to identify 2 to 3 specialized and interested colleagues within the regional Department of Education; individuals who have both a command of the educational field's issues and sufficient motivation for voluntary participation in a novel experience. In the third step, the core selects one specific and relatively limited topic as a "pilot"; topics such as "skill training in secondary school," "academic decline in deprived areas," or "improving the quality of continuous assessment" are suitable options to start with, as they are both familiar issues and their preliminary data is accessible. The fourth step is to design and publish the first experimental call for participation based on that same single topic; this call is designed on a small scale solely to gauge the level of researcher interest and identify executive bottlenecks. The final step is the complete documentation of all steps undertaken, including the number of problems identified, how questions were formulated, the text of the call, the number of volunteer researchers, and the feedback received. This will be presented in the form of a short, clear report to the Research Institute's director to provide a basis for decision-making regarding the core's development and consolidation.

Conclusion

In this administration, we have specialized personnel, field experience, and institutional credibility. What we lack is a system that directs these assets toward solving real problems. The problem-oriented research core is not an additional cost, but an intelligent solution for the optimal use of existing capacities and the absorption of external capacities. This plan can put the name of this research institute on the map as a novel model in the management of educational research.