Deciding on a Research Topic
Selecting a good research topic is rarely easy. There are three important criterion for a good research topic:
1. It should be original so as to make a practical or academic contribution
2. It should be neither too broad or too narrow - Your topic must be narrow and focused enough to be interesting, yet broad enough to find adequate information.
3. It should be feasible and not overambitious - It should be researchable, manageable and achievable
Choosing a topic
Brainstorm Ideas: Ask yourself the following questions to help you generate topic ideas:
Selecting a good research topic is rarely easy. There are three important criterion for a good research topic:
1. It should be original so as to make a practical or academic contribution
2. It should be neither too broad or too narrow - Your topic must be narrow and focused enough to be interesting, yet broad enough to find adequate information.
3. It should be feasible and not overambitious - It should be researchable, manageable and achievable
Choosing a topic
Brainstorm Ideas: Ask yourself the following questions to help you generate topic ideas:
- Do you have a strong opinion on a current social or political controversy?
- Did you read or see a news story recently that has interested you?
- Do you have a personal issue, problem or interest that you would like to know more about?
- Is there an aspect of one of your classes that you would like to learn more about?
The Lotus Chart can be used to help narrow down your research topic. Use it to expand and tease out concepts based upon a broad theme. Begin by placing your broad theme or idea in the centre and then, like a mind map, add the connected ideas to the surrounding coloured boxes. Transpose the connected ideas from the coloured boxes to the corresponding coloured square in the outer boxes. Then further expand. If needed, you can take one of the expanded concepts and place it in the centre of a new Lotus Chart and repeat the process.
Refining Your Research Topic
See the links for resources to help you refine your research topic
MIT Library
GGU Library
UT Library
UDC library
Refining Your Research Topic
See the links for resources to help you refine your research topic
MIT Library
GGU Library
UT Library
UDC library
Formulating Research Focus Questions
The process of formulating a clear, purposeful and effective research focus question is a common difficulty faced by many novice researchers (Daymon & Holloway 2010). It is, however, the most critical aspect of any successful research project (Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ; Bryman 2012). The process of crafting a specific research focus question begins by first selecting a general research area. This broad research area should be gradually narrowed down by identifying a specific research problem. The research problem should again be narrowed down by reviewing the available literature to arrive at a research purpose or objective. By refining and narrowing the research purpose the researcher can then arrive at a specific research question (Creswell 2012 ; Koro-Ljungberg & Hayes 2010).
There is a range of evaluation criteria that one should use to assess the effectiveness of research questions. Firstly, a research question should be neither too broad nor too narrow (Bryman 2012 ; Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ). Questions that are too broad often require a large amount of time and resources that can cause the researcher to lose focus. Questions that are too narrow are less likely to make an academic contribution in their field. A good research question will occupy the middle ground. It will be focused enough to allow research of the question in some depth yet broad enough to allow one to consider the significant aspects of the question (Bryman 2012 ; Empire State College n.d.).
A second criterion for assessing the effectiveness of a research question is that it should be feasible, that is, it should be researchable, manageable and achievable. A research question needs to be feasible in that it can be easily and fully researched within time and budget constraints. It should not be overambitious and should be within the researchers own research and technical skills. In addition, it should generate new knowledge that makes an academic contribution (Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ; Punch 2005). Likewise, a good research question should be original and, as such, make an original practical or academic contribution (Bryman 2012).
It is also crucial that researchers provide a purpose statement or rationale for their research in order to demonstrate and justify the significance of the study. The rationale should demonstrate how the research could be of practical importance in the field. (Bryman 2012 ; Hartas 2010). The rationale should state the research focus, and the intent of the author. It should also state the aim of the study and whether it is for instructional value, an enriched understanding of a topic or a challenge to established theories or practices (Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ; Koro-Ljungberg & Hayes 2010).
Qualitative Verses Quantitative Research
Qualitative and quantitative frameworks have long been expressed as a dichotomy by research academics. These frameworks are seen to differ in terms of their approach, epistemological position, ontological position and type of data collected (Grogan & Simmons 2007; Hughes 2010). The discussion on paradigms can be rather complex and weighty and so Table 1. shown below has been adapted from Bryman (2012). The full complexity of these concepts is described in simplified terms.
Table 1. Quantitative verses Qualitative Theoretical Frameworks (adapted from Bryman 2012)
Simply put, quantitative research is research that is typically expressed in numbers whereas qualitative is not. It is typically expressed in words (Greener 2011 ; McMillan & Wergin 2010). In terms of approaches, research can be seen to be either deductive or inductive. Deductive approaches start out with a research question or theory which must tested using data from observations or findings. Inductive approaches will begin with the observations and findings and then from the data a research theory will be devised. In most cases deductive approaches are aligned with quantitative research and inductive with qualitative (Bryman 2012).
Epistomological position of research is concerned with what should be regarded as acceptable knowledge and how the social world should be studied (Bryman 2012). Positivists advocate for social sciences to be studied in the same way as the natural sciences. Interpretivism, on the other hand, advocates for the study of things in terms of their context and the subjective way people interpret reality (Bryman; de Vaus 2001). In this way quantitative research is seen to align with positivist epistemology and qualitative with an interpretivist position.
Ontology is the concern of whether the world exists independently of our perceptions of it. Objectivism views social phenomena as external and outside of our reach or influence (Greener 2011). Constructivism views our perceptions of the world as being internally constructed and as being continually reshaped by our interaction with it (Bryman 2012). Objectivism is viewed as aligning with the quantitative framework whereas constructivism is considered to fit well with the qualitative framework (Bryman Mackenzie & Knipe 2006).
Qualitative and quantitative paradigms have traditionally been viewed as incompatible and thus research was seen to fit in either one or the other of the theoretical frameworks. While much of this ethos still exists today, it is increasingly viewed as less straightforward due to areas of commonality (Bryman 2012 ; Mackenzie & Knipe 2006). As a result, 'mixed method' research is being adopted and is gaining repute among scholars as producing stronger and more comprehensive data due to triangulation (Bryman ; Mackenzie and Knipe ; McMillan & Schumacher 2006; Punch 2009)
Author: C. Costello 2015
The process of formulating a clear, purposeful and effective research focus question is a common difficulty faced by many novice researchers (Daymon & Holloway 2010). It is, however, the most critical aspect of any successful research project (Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ; Bryman 2012). The process of crafting a specific research focus question begins by first selecting a general research area. This broad research area should be gradually narrowed down by identifying a specific research problem. The research problem should again be narrowed down by reviewing the available literature to arrive at a research purpose or objective. By refining and narrowing the research purpose the researcher can then arrive at a specific research question (Creswell 2012 ; Koro-Ljungberg & Hayes 2010).
There is a range of evaluation criteria that one should use to assess the effectiveness of research questions. Firstly, a research question should be neither too broad nor too narrow (Bryman 2012 ; Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ). Questions that are too broad often require a large amount of time and resources that can cause the researcher to lose focus. Questions that are too narrow are less likely to make an academic contribution in their field. A good research question will occupy the middle ground. It will be focused enough to allow research of the question in some depth yet broad enough to allow one to consider the significant aspects of the question (Bryman 2012 ; Empire State College n.d.).
A second criterion for assessing the effectiveness of a research question is that it should be feasible, that is, it should be researchable, manageable and achievable. A research question needs to be feasible in that it can be easily and fully researched within time and budget constraints. It should not be overambitious and should be within the researchers own research and technical skills. In addition, it should generate new knowledge that makes an academic contribution (Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ; Punch 2005). Likewise, a good research question should be original and, as such, make an original practical or academic contribution (Bryman 2012).
It is also crucial that researchers provide a purpose statement or rationale for their research in order to demonstrate and justify the significance of the study. The rationale should demonstrate how the research could be of practical importance in the field. (Bryman 2012 ; Hartas 2010). The rationale should state the research focus, and the intent of the author. It should also state the aim of the study and whether it is for instructional value, an enriched understanding of a topic or a challenge to established theories or practices (Alvesson & Sandberg 2013 ; Koro-Ljungberg & Hayes 2010).
Qualitative Verses Quantitative Research
Qualitative and quantitative frameworks have long been expressed as a dichotomy by research academics. These frameworks are seen to differ in terms of their approach, epistemological position, ontological position and type of data collected (Grogan & Simmons 2007; Hughes 2010). The discussion on paradigms can be rather complex and weighty and so Table 1. shown below has been adapted from Bryman (2012). The full complexity of these concepts is described in simplified terms.
Table 1. Quantitative verses Qualitative Theoretical Frameworks (adapted from Bryman 2012)
Simply put, quantitative research is research that is typically expressed in numbers whereas qualitative is not. It is typically expressed in words (Greener 2011 ; McMillan & Wergin 2010). In terms of approaches, research can be seen to be either deductive or inductive. Deductive approaches start out with a research question or theory which must tested using data from observations or findings. Inductive approaches will begin with the observations and findings and then from the data a research theory will be devised. In most cases deductive approaches are aligned with quantitative research and inductive with qualitative (Bryman 2012).
Epistomological position of research is concerned with what should be regarded as acceptable knowledge and how the social world should be studied (Bryman 2012). Positivists advocate for social sciences to be studied in the same way as the natural sciences. Interpretivism, on the other hand, advocates for the study of things in terms of their context and the subjective way people interpret reality (Bryman; de Vaus 2001). In this way quantitative research is seen to align with positivist epistemology and qualitative with an interpretivist position.
Ontology is the concern of whether the world exists independently of our perceptions of it. Objectivism views social phenomena as external and outside of our reach or influence (Greener 2011). Constructivism views our perceptions of the world as being internally constructed and as being continually reshaped by our interaction with it (Bryman 2012). Objectivism is viewed as aligning with the quantitative framework whereas constructivism is considered to fit well with the qualitative framework (Bryman Mackenzie & Knipe 2006).
Qualitative and quantitative paradigms have traditionally been viewed as incompatible and thus research was seen to fit in either one or the other of the theoretical frameworks. While much of this ethos still exists today, it is increasingly viewed as less straightforward due to areas of commonality (Bryman 2012 ; Mackenzie & Knipe 2006). As a result, 'mixed method' research is being adopted and is gaining repute among scholars as producing stronger and more comprehensive data due to triangulation (Bryman ; Mackenzie and Knipe ; McMillan & Schumacher 2006; Punch 2009)
Author: C. Costello 2015
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J., (2013). Constructing Rresearch Qquestions : Doing Iinteresting Rresearch. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: OUP.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2010). Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications (2nd EditionEd.). Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
de Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. Thousand Oaks: CA. Sage Publications.
Empire State College,.(n.d.) Developing a Research Question . www8.esc.edu. Retrieved from http://www8.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/0/f87fd7182f0ff21c852569c2005a47b7
Greener, I. (2011). Designing social research: A guide for the bewildered. London: SAGE Publications.
Grogan, M., & Simmons, J. (2007) Taking a critical stance in research. In Research methods in educational leadership and management. (2nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 13-36.
Hartas, D. (2010). Doing a literature review. In D. Hartas (Ed.), Educational research and inquiry : qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 96-109). London : Continuum.
Hughes, P. (2010). Paradigms, methods and knowledge. In Doing early childhood research : international perspectives on theory & practice (2nd ed.) Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin. 35-61.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Hayes, S. (2010). Proposing an argument for research questions that could create permeable boundaries within qualitative research. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 4(3), 114-12
MacKenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205
McMillan, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (2010). Understanding and evaluating educational research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill.
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research designs and reading research reports. In Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. 21-49.
Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research : quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.). London: Sage
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J., (2013). Constructing Rresearch Qquestions : Doing Iinteresting Rresearch. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: OUP.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2010). Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications (2nd EditionEd.). Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
de Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. Thousand Oaks: CA. Sage Publications.
Empire State College,.(n.d.) Developing a Research Question . www8.esc.edu. Retrieved from http://www8.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/0/f87fd7182f0ff21c852569c2005a47b7
Greener, I. (2011). Designing social research: A guide for the bewildered. London: SAGE Publications.
Grogan, M., & Simmons, J. (2007) Taking a critical stance in research. In Research methods in educational leadership and management. (2nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 13-36.
Hartas, D. (2010). Doing a literature review. In D. Hartas (Ed.), Educational research and inquiry : qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 96-109). London : Continuum.
Hughes, P. (2010). Paradigms, methods and knowledge. In Doing early childhood research : international perspectives on theory & practice (2nd ed.) Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin. 35-61.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Hayes, S. (2010). Proposing an argument for research questions that could create permeable boundaries within qualitative research. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 4(3), 114-12
MacKenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205
McMillan, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (2010). Understanding and evaluating educational research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill.
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research designs and reading research reports. In Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. 21-49.
Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research : quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.). London: Sage
Our Virtual Library by Cathy Costello is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Cathy Costello teacher librarian virtual library
