I went back to basics this week and literally researched research questions; how to narrow them down, how to structure them, how to embed concepts and just generally how to tighten everything up just that bit more.
It's a tedious process, and I can't help but feel like a child with yet another drawing each time my supervision meetings roll around. There really is no dignity in it. In I go, month in, month out, offering up the fruits of my labour in cupped hands, eager eyes looking up at them, blinking expectantly.
Each time, my supervisors openly play 'devils advocate' with my research/life/pride. I know one day I will probably appreciate their doing this more than I can put into words, because I do sort of feel like I am already undergoing some form of personal and academic transformation. At the moment however, such techniques can feel like the cruellest of tripwires. Funny how this never seems to put us off though... * <are all PhD students intellectual sadomasochists..?> *
I diverge. Getting back to basics with research questions:
Most research problems are difficult, or even impossible to solve without breaking them down into smaller problems. Does one aspect have to be researched before another aspect can be begun? The sub-problems should delineate the scope of the work, and, taken together, should define the entire problem to be tackled as summarized in the main problem (P.36-7).
Formulating Research Questions in Qualitative Research.
Underlying this approach to qualitative research is the assumption that all of the concepts pertaining to a given phenomenon have not yet been identified, at least not in this population or place. Or, if so, then the relationships between the concepts are poorly understood or conceptually undeveloped. Or perhaps there is the assumption that nobody ever asked this particular question in quite the same way… (P40).
General research questions are more general, more abstract, and (usually) not themselves directly answerable. Specific research questions are more specific, detailed and concrete. They are directly answerable because they point directly at the data they need to answer them(p24).
At the heart of this discussion is the process of making a general concept more specific by showing it’s dimensions, aspects, factors, components or indicators (p24).
In empirical research, it is necessary that data be linked to concepts, and concepts to data, and that the links between concepts and data be tight, logical and consistent. Concepts are embedded in research questions, General questions use general concepts, and specific questions use specific concepts(p25).
Translating general concepts down to specific concepts means specifying what the researcher will take to be the indicators, the empirical data of these concepts (p25).
For each question, is it clear what data will be required to answer the question? If the research questions do not give clear indications of the data needed to answer them, we will not know how to proceed in the research when it comes to the data collection and analysis stages(p25).
If you're dealing with a lot of abstract concepts, or find yourself getting that little bit too immersed in the endless flows of "absolutely relevant and interesting literature" your word searches are returning, sometimes going back to basics can really help to bring your research back to reality.
Kath
x
No comments:
Post a Comment