a research question is intended to

Not sure how to log in to access library resources? Click here to learn how!

Guess what? We're open! Click here for our new hours

Library Home

• Library Website
• Research Basics

Developing a Research Question

• Introduction
• The Research Process
• Scholarly & Peer-Reviewed
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Quantitative vs. Qualitative
• Evaluating Sources

What is a research question?

A research question is an essential tool to help guide your research paper, project, or thesis. It poses a specific question that you are seeking to answer in your paper. Research questions can be broad or narrow, and can change throughout the research process.

A good research question should be:

• Focused on a single issue
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly in your paper
• Feasible to answer within the length of your paper
• Researchable using the resources available to you
• Relevant to your field of study and/or to society at large

The length of your paper and the research you're able to locate will help to shape your research question. A longer paper, like a thesis or dissertation, may require multiple research questions.

The answer to your research question develops into your thesis statement .

Writing Your Research Question

Chose a Topic

You should choose a research topic that is interesting to you. This will make the research and writing process much more bearable.

A good way to begin brainstorming research questions is to list all the questions you would like to see answered, or topics you would like to learn more about. You may have been provided a list of potential topics by your professor, if none are interesting to you ask if you can develop your own.

It is better to start broad and narrow down your focus as you go.

Do Preliminary Research

Reference materials like encyclopedias can also be good for this purpose.

Narrow Your Topic

Now that you have a basic idea of what research exists on your topic, you can begin to narrow your focus.

Make sure that your question is specific enough that it can be answered thoroughly in the length of your paper.

Developing a Research Question Video Tutorial

Using Keywords Video Tutorial

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: The Research Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 15, 2023 3:47 PM
• URL: https://library.ndnu.edu/researchbasics

Academic Success Center

Emergency Information

© 2023 Notre Dame de Namur University. All rights reserved.

Notre Dame de Namur University 1500 Ralston Avenue Belmont, CA 94002 Map

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Strong research questions

Part 2: Chapter 4

Questions to consider

A. What role does questioning play in advancing knowledge?

B. How can well-formulated questions support the development of a thesis ?

C. What are the qualities of a strong research question?

People look for information to answer implied or explicit questions every day. A research question prompts the questioner to do more than find an answer. Consider the differences between the standard  and research questions below.

Standard Question: When and where is that movie showing on Friday? Research Question: How do “sleeper” films end up having outstanding attendance figures? Standard Question: How many children in the U.S. have allergies? Research Question: How does his or her country of birth affect a child’s chances of developing asthma? Standard Question: What year was metformin approved by the U.S. Food and Drug administration? Research Question: Why are nanomedicines, such as doxorubicin, worth developing? Standard Question: Can citizens register to vote at the public library? Research Question: How do public libraries in the United States support democracy? Standard Question: What is the Whorfian Hypothesis? Research Question: Why are linguists interested in the Whorfian hypothesis?

Language in Action

A. Explore “motivation” in a series of standard questions.

B. Extend the questions about “motivation” to those of a research nature.

C. What factors can be added to develop compelling and meaningful research on “motivation”?

The influences of research questions Producing a research question prompts writers to

• define the scope of their interest; • evaluate the feasibility of the inquiry; • determine what sources will be of value; and • establish potential conclusions.

For academic purposes, research questions can be developed for both large and small assignments. A smaller assignment may be research for a class discussion or a blog post; larger assignments may involve conducting research and then delivering it in a lab report, poster, term paper, or article. For large projects, the research question (or questions) will define or at least heavily influence

• the topic, in that research questions effectively narrow the subject; • any hypotheses under consideration; • which information sources are relevant; and • resulting claims or conclusions.

Influence on thesis Within an essay, poster, or term paper, the thesis is the researcher’s response to the research question(s). Developing research questions is effectively specifying that thesis. While perhaps many research questions emerge from the original topic, the primary question addresses those the thesis will answer. For example, a topic that starts out as “desert symbiosis” could eventually lead to “How does the diversity of bacteria in the gut of the Sonoran Desert termite contribute to the termite’s survival?” In turn, the researcher’s thesis will answer that particular research question instead of the numerous other questions that could have come from the desert symbiosis topic. Developing research questions is part of the process establishing clear parameters.

Influence on hypothesis A study that predicts how variables are related will have at least one hypothesis . The research questions will contain the variables that later appear in the hypothesis(es). Despite the strength of their influence on the overall project, research questions do not always appear in the final products (papers or articles) of the research.

Influence on resources The research questions help divide all information sources into two groups: those that are relevant and those that are not.

Influence on research methods Research questions are vital in determining appropriate field research. For instance, when the research question relates to describing the preferences of a group, survey methods may work well. In contrast, research questions that examine a laboratory practice will guide the development of a research method.

Influence on claims or conclusions The research questions reflect whether the investigation is intended to describe a group or situation, to explain or predict outcomes, or to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationship(s) among variables. Those intentions and how comprehensive the inquiry is will determine what claims or conclusions can be made. [1]

Exercise #1

The question frames below provide a context through which to explore possible topics.  Some are more appropriate for initial rather than in-depth exploration. Choose a few that work in your field; modify and complete them to suit your topic. [2]

• What does ___ mean? (definition)
• What are the various features of ___? (description)
• What are the component parts of ___? (simple analysis)
• How is ___ made or done? (process analysis)
• How should ___ be made or done? (directional analysis)
• What is the essential function of ___? (functional analysis)
• What are the causes of ___? (causal analysis)
• What are the consequences of ___? (causal analysis)
• What are the types of ___? (classification)
• How is ___ like or unlike ___? (comparison)
• What is the present status of ___? (comparison)
• What is the significance of ___? (interpretation)
• What are the facts about ___? (reportage)
• How did ___ happen? (narration)
• What kind of person is ___? (characterization/profile)
• What is the value of ___? (evaluation)
• What are the essential major points or features of ___? (summary)
• What case can be made for or against ___? (persuasion)
• What is the relationship between_____ and the outcome of ____? (explorative)

Review and Reinforce

Research questions typically appear in standard question format and express a relationship between two or more variables; for example, how is A related to B? Research questions also imply possibilities for empirical testing; metaphysical questions are not measurable, and a variable that cannot be clearly defined cannot be tested.

Exercise #2

Identify the variables in these questions.

How does motivation affect participation in graduate level classes?

How does social isolation affect the academic performance of international graduate students?

What common demotivating factors influence the academic performance of international graduate students and how can they be mitigated?

Media Attributions

• indonesiacovid © USAID_IMAGES is licensed under a CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial) license
• Adapted from Teaching & Learning, (2018). Choosing & using sources: a guide to academic research. The Ohio State University. https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/choosingsources/ ↵
• Adapted from Frederiksen, L., & Phelps, S. F. (2017). Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students. Open Textbook Library ↵

a unique, new concept, generally presented with persuasive evidence

a prediction established for testing or exploration

in research writing, supportive information deployed as evidence or extension

Sourcing, summarizing, and synthesizing:  Skills for effective research writing  Copyright © 2023 by Wendy L. McBride is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Developing a Research Question

by acburton | Mar 22, 2024 | Resources for Students , Writing Resources

Selecting your research question and creating a clear goal and structure for your writing can be challenging – whether you are doing it for the first time or if you’ve done it many times before. It can be especially difficult when your research question starts to look and feel a little different somewhere between your first and final draft. Don’t panic! It’s normal for your research question to change a little (or even quite a bit) as you move through and engage with the writing process. Anticipating this can remind you to stay on track while you work and that it’ll be okay even if the literature takes you in a different direction.

What Makes an Effective Research Question?

The most effective research question will usually be a critical thinking question and should use “how” or “why” to ensure it can move beyond a yes/no or one-word type of answer. Consider how your research question can aim to reveal something new, fill in a gap, even if small, and contribute to the field in a meaningful way; How might the proposed project move knowledge forward about a particular place or process? This should be specific and achievable!

The CEWC’s Grad Writing Consultant Tariq says, “I definitely concentrated on those aspects of what I saw in the field where I believed there was an opportunity to move the discipline forward.”

General Tips

Do your research.

Utilize the librarians at your university and take the time to research your topic first. Try looking at very general sources to get an idea of what could be interesting to you before you move to more academic articles that support your rough idea of the topic. It is important that research is grounded in what you see or experience regarding the topic you have chosen and what is already known in the literature. Spend time researching articles, books, etc. that supports your thesis. Once you have a number of sources that you know support what you want to write about, formulate a research question that serves as the interrogative form of your thesis statement.

Grad Writing Consultant Deni advises, “Delineate your intervention in the literature (i.e., be strategic about the literature you discuss and clear about your contributions to it).”

Start Broadly…. then Narrow Your Topic Down to Something Manageable

When brainstorming your research question, let your mind veer toward connections or associations that you might have already considered or that seem to make sense and consider if new research terms, language or concepts come to mind that may be interesting or exciting for you as a researcher. Sometimes testing out a research question while doing some preliminary researching is also useful to see if the language you are using or the direction you are heading toward is fruitful when trying to search strategically in academic databases. Be prepared to focus on a specific area of a broad topic.

Writing Consultant Jessie recommends outlining: “I think some rough outlining with a research question in mind can be helpful for me. I’ll have a research question and maybe a working thesis that I feel may be my claim to the research question based on some preliminary materials, brainstorming, etc.” — Jessie, CEWC Writing Consultant

Try an Exercise

In the earliest phase of brainstorming, try an exercise suggested by CEWC Writing Specialist, Percival! While it is normally used in classroom or workshop settings, this exercise can easily be modified for someone working alone. The flow of the activity, if done within a group setting, is 1) someone starts with an idea, 2) three other people share their idea, and 3) the starting person picks two of these new ideas they like best and combines their original idea with those. The activity then begins again with the idea that was not chosen. The solo version of this exercise substitutes a ‘word bank,’ created using words, topics, or ideas similar to your broad, overarching theme. Pick two words or phrases from your word bank, combine it with your original idea or topic, and ‘start again’ with two different words. This serves as a replacement for different people’s suggestions. Ideas for your ‘word bank’ can range from vague prompts about mapping or webbing (e.g., where your topic falls within the discipline and others like it), to more specific concepts that come from tracing the history of an idea (its past, present, future) or mapping the idea’s related ideas, influences, etc. Care for a physics analogy? There is a particle (your topic) that you can describe, a wave that the particle traces, and a field that the particle is mapped on.

Get Feedback and Affirm Your Confidence!

Creating a few different versions of your research question (they may be the same topic/issue/theme or differ slightly) can be useful during this process. Sharing these with trusted friends, colleagues, mentors, (or tutors!) and having conversations about your questions and ideas with other people can help you decide which version you may feel most confident or interested in. Ask colleagues and mentors to share their research questions with you to get a lot of examples. Once you have done the work of developing an effective research question, do not forget to affirm your confidence! Based on your working thesis, think about how you might organize your chapters or paragraphs and what resources you have for supporting this structure and organization. This can help boost your confidence that the research question you have created is effective and fruitful.

Be Open to Change

Remember, your research question may change from your first to final draft. For questions along the way, make an appointment with the Writing Center. We are here to help you develop an effective and engaging research question and build the foundation for a solid research paper!

Example 1: In my field developing a research question involves navigating the relationship between 1) what one sees/experiences at their field site and 2) what is already known in the literature. During my preliminary research, I found that the financial value of land was often a matter of precisely these cultural factors. So, my research question ended up being: How do the social and material qualities of land entangle with processes of financialization in the city of Lahore. Regarding point #1, this question was absolutely informed by what I saw in the field. But regarding point #2, the question was also heavily shaped by the literature. – Tariq

Example 2: A research question should not be a yes/no question like “Is pollution bad?”; but an open-ended question where the answer has to be supported with reasons and explanation. The question also has to be narrowed down to a specific topic—using the same example as before—”Is pollution bad?” can be revised to “How does pollution affect people?” I would encourage students to be more specific then; e.g., what area of pollution do you want to talk about: water, air, plastic, climate change… what type of people or demographic can we focus on? …how does this affect marginalized communities, minorities, or specific areas in California? After researching and deciding on a focus, your question might sound something like: How does government policy affect water pollution and how does it affect the marginalized communities in the state of California? -Janella

Our Newest Resources!

• Transitioning to Long-form Writing
• Integrating Direct Quotations into Your Writing
• Nurturing a Growth Mindset to Overcome Writing Challenges and Develop Confidence in College Level Writing
• An Introduction to Paraphrasing, Summarizing, and Quoting

Additional Resources

• Graduate Writing Consultants
• Instructor Resources
• Student Resources
• Quick Guides and Handouts
• Self-Guided and Directed Learning Activities

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Questions

Definition:

Research questions are the specific questions that guide a research study or inquiry. These questions help to define the scope of the research and provide a clear focus for the study. Research questions are usually developed at the beginning of a research project and are designed to address a particular research problem or objective.

Types of Research Questions

Types of Research Questions are as follows:

Descriptive Research Questions

These aim to describe a particular phenomenon, group, or situation. For example:

• What are the characteristics of the target population?
• What is the prevalence of a particular disease in a specific region?

Exploratory Research Questions

These aim to explore a new area of research or generate new ideas or hypotheses. For example:

• What are the potential causes of a particular phenomenon?
• What are the possible outcomes of a specific intervention?

Explanatory Research Questions

These aim to understand the relationship between two or more variables or to explain why a particular phenomenon occurs. For example:

• What is the effect of a specific drug on the symptoms of a particular disease?
• What are the factors that contribute to employee turnover in a particular industry?

Predictive Research Questions

These aim to predict a future outcome or trend based on existing data or trends. For example :

• What will be the future demand for a particular product or service?
• What will be the future prevalence of a particular disease?

Evaluative Research Questions

These aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular intervention or program. For example:

• What is the impact of a specific educational program on student learning outcomes?
• What is the effectiveness of a particular policy or program in achieving its intended goals?

How to Choose Research Questions

Choosing research questions is an essential part of the research process and involves careful consideration of the research problem, objectives, and design. Here are some steps to consider when choosing research questions:

• Identify the research problem: Start by identifying the problem or issue that you want to study. This could be a gap in the literature, a social or economic issue, or a practical problem that needs to be addressed.
• Conduct a literature review: Conducting a literature review can help you identify existing research in your area of interest and can help you formulate research questions that address gaps or limitations in the existing literature.
• Define the research objectives : Clearly define the objectives of your research. What do you want to achieve with your study? What specific questions do you want to answer?
• Consider the research design : Consider the research design that you plan to use. This will help you determine the appropriate types of research questions to ask. For example, if you plan to use a qualitative approach, you may want to focus on exploratory or descriptive research questions.
• Ensure that the research questions are clear and answerable: Your research questions should be clear and specific, and should be answerable with the data that you plan to collect. Avoid asking questions that are too broad or vague.
• Get feedback : Get feedback from your supervisor, colleagues, or peers to ensure that your research questions are relevant, feasible, and meaningful.

How to Write Research Questions

Guide for Writing Research Questions:

• Start with a clear statement of the research problem: Begin by stating the problem or issue that your research aims to address. This will help you to formulate focused research questions.
• Use clear language : Write your research questions in clear and concise language that is easy to understand. Avoid using jargon or technical terms that may be unfamiliar to your readers.
• Be specific: Your research questions should be specific and focused. Avoid broad questions that are difficult to answer. For example, instead of asking “What is the impact of climate change on the environment?” ask “What are the effects of rising sea levels on coastal ecosystems?”
• Use appropriate question types: Choose the appropriate question types based on the research design and objectives. For example, if you are conducting a qualitative study, you may want to use open-ended questions that allow participants to provide detailed responses.
• Consider the feasibility of your questions : Ensure that your research questions are feasible and can be answered with the resources available. Consider the data sources and methods of data collection when writing your questions.
• Seek feedback: Get feedback from your supervisor, colleagues, or peers to ensure that your research questions are relevant, appropriate, and meaningful.

Examples of Research Questions

Some Examples of Research Questions with Research Titles:

Research Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health

• Research Question : What is the relationship between social media use and mental health, and how does this impact individuals’ well-being?

Research Title: Factors Influencing Academic Success in High School

• Research Question: What are the primary factors that influence academic success in high school, and how do they contribute to student achievement?

Research Title: The Effects of Exercise on Physical and Mental Health

• Research Question: What is the relationship between exercise and physical and mental health, and how can exercise be used as a tool to improve overall well-being?

Research Title: Understanding the Factors that Influence Consumer Purchasing Decisions

• Research Question : What are the key factors that influence consumer purchasing decisions, and how do these factors vary across different demographics and products?

Research Title: The Impact of Technology on Communication

• Research Question : How has technology impacted communication patterns, and what are the effects of these changes on interpersonal relationships and society as a whole?

Research Title: Investigating the Relationship between Parenting Styles and Child Development

• Research Question: What is the relationship between different parenting styles and child development outcomes, and how do these outcomes vary across different ages and developmental stages?

Research Title: The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Treating Anxiety Disorders

• Research Question: How effective is cognitive-behavioral therapy in treating anxiety disorders, and what factors contribute to its success or failure in different patients?

Research Title: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity

• Research Question : How is climate change affecting global biodiversity, and what can be done to mitigate the negative effects on natural ecosystems?

Research Title: Exploring the Relationship between Cultural Diversity and Workplace Productivity

• Research Question : How does cultural diversity impact workplace productivity, and what strategies can be employed to maximize the benefits of a diverse workforce?

Research Title: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

• Research Question: How can artificial intelligence be leveraged to improve healthcare outcomes, and what are the potential risks and ethical concerns associated with its use?

Applications of Research Questions

Here are some of the key applications of research questions:

• Defining the scope of the study : Research questions help researchers to narrow down the scope of their study and identify the specific issues they want to investigate.
• Developing hypotheses: Research questions often lead to the development of hypotheses, which are testable predictions about the relationship between variables. Hypotheses provide a clear and focused direction for the study.
• Designing the study : Research questions guide the design of the study, including the selection of participants, the collection of data, and the analysis of results.
• Collecting data : Research questions inform the selection of appropriate methods for collecting data, such as surveys, interviews, or experiments.
• Analyzing data : Research questions guide the analysis of data, including the selection of appropriate statistical tests and the interpretation of results.
• Communicating results : Research questions help researchers to communicate the results of their study in a clear and concise manner. The research questions provide a framework for discussing the findings and drawing conclusions.

Characteristics of Research Questions

Characteristics of Research Questions are as follows:

• Clear and Specific : A good research question should be clear and specific. It should clearly state what the research is trying to investigate and what kind of data is required.
• Relevant : The research question should be relevant to the study and should address a current issue or problem in the field of research.
• Testable : The research question should be testable through empirical evidence. It should be possible to collect data to answer the research question.
• Concise : The research question should be concise and focused. It should not be too broad or too narrow.
• Feasible : The research question should be feasible to answer within the constraints of the research design, time frame, and available resources.
• Original : The research question should be original and should contribute to the existing knowledge in the field of research.
• Significant : The research question should have significance and importance to the field of research. It should have the potential to provide new insights and knowledge to the field.
• Ethical : The research question should be ethical and should not cause harm to any individuals or groups involved in the study.

Purpose of Research Questions

Research questions are the foundation of any research study as they guide the research process and provide a clear direction to the researcher. The purpose of research questions is to identify the scope and boundaries of the study, and to establish the goals and objectives of the research.

The main purpose of research questions is to help the researcher to focus on the specific area or problem that needs to be investigated. They enable the researcher to develop a research design, select the appropriate methods and tools for data collection and analysis, and to organize the results in a meaningful way.

Research questions also help to establish the relevance and significance of the study. They define the research problem, and determine the research methodology that will be used to address the problem. Research questions also help to determine the type of data that will be collected, and how it will be analyzed and interpreted.

Finally, research questions provide a framework for evaluating the results of the research. They help to establish the validity and reliability of the data, and provide a basis for drawing conclusions and making recommendations based on the findings of the study.

Advantages of Research Questions

There are several advantages of research questions in the research process, including:

• Focus : Research questions help to focus the research by providing a clear direction for the study. They define the specific area of investigation and provide a framework for the research design.
• Clarity : Research questions help to clarify the purpose and objectives of the study, which can make it easier for the researcher to communicate the research aims to others.
• Relevance : Research questions help to ensure that the study is relevant and meaningful. By asking relevant and important questions, the researcher can ensure that the study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge and address important issues.
• Consistency : Research questions help to ensure consistency in the research process by providing a framework for the development of the research design, data collection, and analysis.
• Measurability : Research questions help to ensure that the study is measurable by defining the specific variables and outcomes that will be measured.
• Replication : Research questions help to ensure that the study can be replicated by providing a clear and detailed description of the research aims, methods, and outcomes. This makes it easier for other researchers to replicate the study and verify the results.

Limitations of Research Questions

Limitations of Research Questions are as follows:

• Subjectivity : Research questions are often subjective and can be influenced by personal biases and perspectives of the researcher. This can lead to a limited understanding of the research problem and may affect the validity and reliability of the study.
• Inadequate scope : Research questions that are too narrow in scope may limit the breadth of the study, while questions that are too broad may make it difficult to focus on specific research objectives.
• Unanswerable questions : Some research questions may not be answerable due to the lack of available data or limitations in research methods. In such cases, the research question may need to be rephrased or modified to make it more answerable.
• Lack of clarity : Research questions that are poorly worded or ambiguous can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. This can result in incomplete or inaccurate data, which may compromise the validity of the study.
• Difficulty in measuring variables : Some research questions may involve variables that are difficult to measure or quantify, making it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
• Lack of generalizability: Research questions that are too specific or limited in scope may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. This can limit the applicability of the study’s findings and restrict its broader implications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

36 What Is a Research Question?

Most research, both in college and in the workplace, starts with a research question. A research question is a clear and concise statement that identifies the focus of a research project and provides a direction for the research process. It is the fundamental question that the researcher aims to answer through their study.

A research question should be specific, well-defined, and answerable based on available evidence. It should be grounded in a clear understanding of the existing literature and should address a gap or limitation in current knowledge or practice. It should also be feasible and realistic in terms of the scope and resources available for the research project.

A good research question should be relevant, interesting, and meaningful to the researcher and the intended audience. It should be formulated in a way that allows the researcher to collect and analyze data that will help to answer the question and advance understanding in the field.

Examples of research questions include the following:

• What is the relationship between physical exercise and mental health in older adults?
• What are the factors that influence the adoption of renewable energy technologies in developing countries?
• How does gender affect leadership styles and outcomes in the workplace?
• What is the impact of social media on body image and self-esteem in young adults?

Knowledge Check

Have you ever developed a research question for an assignment in a class? What about in the workplace? What concerns do you have about developing good research questions?

Overall, a research question is a critical component of the research process, as it helps to guide the design, implementation, and analysis of the study and ensures that the research project is focused and meaningful. What kinds of research questions interest you? What are some topics that are currently being researched in your future career?

Watch this short video for tips on how to develop a good research question:

In the next chapter, we will learn more about research methods we can use to answer research questions, both in school and in the workplace.

Pathways to College Success Copyright © by CWI 101 Leaders is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Clin Epidemiol

From ideas to studies: how to get ideas and sharpen them into research questions

Jan p vandenbroucke.

1 Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

2 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

3 Department of Medical Statistics and Centre for Global NCDs, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Neil Pearce

Where do new research questions come from? This is at best only partially taught in courses or textbooks about clinical or epidemiological research. Methods are taught under the assumption that a researcher already knows the research question and knows which methods will fit that question. Similarly, the real complexity of the thought processes that lead to a scientific undertaking is almost never described in published papers. In this paper, we first discuss how to get an idea that is worth researching. We describe sources of new ideas and how to foster a creative attitude by “cultivating your thoughts”. Only a few of these ideas will make it into a study. Next, we describe how to sharpen and focus a research question so that a study becomes feasible and a valid test of the underlying idea. To do this, the idea needs to be “pruned”. Pruning a research question means cutting away anything that is unnecessary, so that only the essence remains. This includes determining both the latent and the stated objectives, specific pruning questions, and the use of specific schemes to structure reasoning. After this, the following steps include preparation of a brief protocol, conduct of a pilot study, and writing a draft of the paper including draft tables. Then you are ready to carry out your research.

Introduction

How do you get an idea for a study? How do you turn your idea into a testable hypothesis, and turn this into an appropriate and feasible study design? This is usually at best only partially taught in epidemiology courses. Most courses and textbooks assume that you know your research question and the general methods that you will need to answer it. Somehow it is assumed that you can readily translate your idea into a specific framework, such as the PICO framework (Patient, Intervention, Control or Comparison, Outcome) 1 or the FINER framework (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant) 2 or that you can fit it into counterfactual reasoning. 3 However, before describing your project in one of these frameworks, you first need to have an idea for your study and think about it in general terms: why you might do a study and how you might do a study.

This paper considers the complex process of having ideas, keeping track of them, turning them into studies, trying them out in pilot studies, and writing a draft paper before you finally embark on your study.

The paper is intended for novice researchers in clinical or public health epidemiology. It is not intended to be a comprehensive literature review about creativity, nor a sociology or philosophical treatise about why scientists get particular ideas (and not other ideas). It is based on our personal experience of (a combined) 70+ epidemiologic research-years. We have worked on very different topics, mostly on opposite sides of the globe, yet found that our experiences are quite similar. The fact that these issues are rarely covered in epidemiology courses has provided motivation to reflect on our experience.

Getting new ideas

So how do you get an idea? How some juxtaposition of neural patterns in our brain suddenly creates a new idea is a process that we are far from understanding. According to Karl Popper, the origin of new ideas does not matter; the only thing of interest is to devise how to test them. 4 Over the past decades, the literature has been enriched with new ideas about “being creative” in science – as witnessed in the book Innovation Generation by Ness. 5

In the present paper, we will not cover the literature about creativity and discovery in depth, but we will discuss the issues that we consider relevant to epidemiologic research. We will first consider the more general principles.

The real complexity of the thought processes that lead to a scientific undertaking is almost never described in published papers. Immunologist Medawar claimed that in this respect almost all scientific papers may be a fraud – not in the sense that scientists deliberately produce misleading data, but in the sense that the real thought processes that lead to the data and conclusions are not mentioned. 6 Scientists tell us about their real thought processes in memoirs, inaugural, or valedictory lectures – which is why these are so much more interesting than “standard” papers or presentations.

What strikes our minds: regularities or anomalies?

All sciences study a particular “object of knowledge” (eg, “matter”, “life”). Ideas come from experience and previous knowledge or facts about this object of knowledge, although this knowledge is always filtered through the perspective of one or more theories. 7 Epidemiology studies the distribution and determinants of disease in human populations, 8 and epidemiological ideas arise from observing and thinking about populations. 9 These could be clinical populations (ie, clinical experience, sometimes involving just a few patients), exposure-based populations (eg, workers exposed to a particular chemical), or general populations (geographically defined or sociologically defined). Whatever the population we are interested in, ideas come from observing either regularities or anomalies.

The observation of regularities (“induction”) is a common origin of new ideas. 4 , 10 – 13 Philosopher David Hume described “Induction” as: regularly seeing two things happening in succession (like pushing a switch and a light going on) leads to suspicions of causality. As he pointed out, causality can never be proven by the mere observation of “constant conjunctions”, but observing regularities can start our train of thought. 12

An anomaly (or irregularity) strikes our mind, because it defies our expectations. The regularity that we expected was our “hypothesis” (even if it was not really explicitly formulated); the anomaly is a “refutation”. 4 , 13 It forces us to think about other explanations, and these lead to new hypotheses that we then try to test. Thus, scientists do not usually start from hypotheses that are nicely formulated “out of the blue”, but instead start from previous knowledge and experience; when they are challenged by anomalies, scientists seek new explanations. 14

An interesting way to discover anomalies is to enter a new field of research; since you have other background experience than the people already in the field, you see things that they take for granted but that strike you as odd – at the same time, you may also see new explanations for these anomalies. One of the pioneers of clinical epidemiology, Sackett, once wrote that scientists should “retire” from a field as soon as they become “experts”. 15 When you are too long in a field, you will no longer see the anomalies, and you may even obstruct newcomers with new explanations. Of course, there are differences between scientists: some roam across various fields and others stick to a problem area that they explore with increasing depth – then the increasing depth and the new techniques that one needs for advancing one’s thoughts will be like a “new field”.

Taxonomies of discovery

Few researchers have listed the different ways in which one can arrive at new ideas, that is, lists of ways of discovery. We will present two of them – which have very different origins but remarkable similarities. Several examples of studies corresponding to items on these two lists are given in Appendix Examples A1–A10 .

Sources for new ideas about health care evaluation were described by Crombie and Davies in the chapter “Developing the research question” of their book on Research in Health Care that reflects a UK public health experience. 16

• “Review existing practice […] the current organisation and delivery of health care is not as good as it could be […]”
• “Challenge accepted ideas […] much of health care is based on accepted practice rather than research evidence […]” ( Appendix Example A3 )
• “Look for conflicting views […] which indicate either that there is not enough evidence, or that some practitioners are misinformed”
• “Investigate geographical variation […] reflecting on the reasons [for geographical variation] can be a fruitful source of research questions […]” ( Appendix Example A6 )
• “Identify Cinderella topics […] important areas of health care are often overlooked […]”
• “Let loose the imagination […] look for wild or impossible ideas […] free the mind from the constraints of conventional wisdom […].”

A taxonomy for sources of clinical research questions about medical care and clinical problems was proposed by Hulley and Cummings, in the context of clinical research in the US: 2

• “Build on experience;” your own experience, that of close colleagues with whom you can freely discuss your research ideas, and that of a good mentor, because young researchers might not yet have much experience, “An essential strategy for a young investigator is to apprentice himself to an experienced senior scientist who has the time and interest to work with him regularly.”
• ○ By harvesting “the medical literature and attending journal clubs, national and international meetings, seeking informal conversations with other scientists and colleagues”
• ○ “A sceptical attitude about prevailing beliefs can stimulate good research questions”
• ○ Be alert to “careful observation of patients, which has historically been one of the major sources of descriptive studies” ( Appendix Examples A1 and A2 )
• ○ Your experiences in teaching; having to explain something may make you aware of gaps in your knowledge; questions by patients and colleagues may similarly identify things that we do not fully understand or ignore
• “Keep the imagination roaming […]” by a mixture of creativity and tenacity; “put an unresolved question clearly in view and turn on the mental switch that lets the mind run freely toward it”.

A special mention needs to be made about the last categories of both the lists: “Let loose the imagination” and “Keep the imagination roaming”. These are especially important to find innovative solutions. In many situations wherein you cannot do a perfect study and you run a grave danger of potential confounding or bias, it helps to “get deeply immersed”: to understand the problem biologically, clinically, socially, organizationally, and environmentally will help you to think about what is happening, why it is happening, and whether you can find situations in which the potential confounders or biases do not exist or exists in reverse. You should forget formal designs and think out of the box: you will find instances of studies that mutually reinforce each other and may even arrive at formulating new designs or analytic solutions (see Appendix Examples A7–A10 ).

Keeping track of your ideas

It is not only important to have good ideas but also important to develop them. Researchers who work in laboratories have the habit of keeping “lab logs”. They write down briefly the results of an experiment, note why they think it went wrong, and how they will perform the next experiment. This permits them to trace how they changed the experiments or even the content and the direction of their research. We should do the same in epidemiologic and clinical research, particularly in the stage of creating new ideas. Such notes about ideas can include not only hypotheses and views or results by others but also drawing directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) (see “Intermezzo: specific schemes to structure reasoning” section) to make the causal structures of ideas clear.

The greatest minds kept track of their thoughts. Charles Darwin’s notebooks document his ideas, his observations, his readings, and new theories and facts that struck him. 17 For example, Darwin noted a story that he heard from his father, a medical practitioner. His father recounted that he had been struck by one of his patients’ ways of expressing himself, because he had attended a parent of the patient who had had the same mannerisms – even though the parent had died when the patient was still an infant. Remarks like these still have relevance today when we think about the heredity and evolution of behavior.

The sociologist C Wright Mills carried the description of the process one step further in the appendix of his book on The Sociological Imagination . 18 He encourages young sociologists to set up a file of stacked cards to keep track of “[…] personal experience and professional activities, studies underway and studies planned […]” which “[…] encourages you to capture ‘fringe thoughts’: various ideas which may be by-products of everyday life, stretches of conversations […]”. These notes are continuously reshuffled, regrouped under new headings, and pondered. Mills denounced the habit of most (social) scientists who feel the need to write about their plans only when they are going to apply for a grant. He thought that scientists should continually work with their file of ideas and regularly take stock of how these have evolved.

Such strategies are still relevant today, even if our “logs” are kept in electronic form, particularly because grant writing has become more demanding, hectic, and time-consuming. From such files, new research projects are born: while your ideas gradually develop, you keep wondering what data you might need to prove a certain proposition, and how you might get those data in the easiest way possible. Often, ideas are reshuffled and regrouped under new headings. A new observation, a new piece of literature may make old ones fall into place, or there may suddenly be a new opportunity to work out an old idea.

A complementary advice recently came in a blog from a contemporary sociologist, Aldrich: his advice is to “Write as if you don’t have the data”, that is, to write “[…] the literature review and planning phase of a project, preferably before it has been locked into a specific research design”. 19

The role of emotions

Underlying the discovery process, there are often two emotions: “surprise” and “indignation”. Surprise is the intellectual emotion when we see something happening against expectation: a patient with an unusual exposure, unusual disease manifestation, sudden cure, or sudden ill-understood deterioration; a laboratory result that is an anomaly; and a sudden epidemic of disease in a population. Indignation is the moral emotion: a group of patients is not being treated well because we lack sufficient knowledge, or because we are blundering in organizing health care or in transmitting and applying public health knowledge. Some passion is useful to bring any undertaking to a good end, be it that the passion should be restrained and channeled into polite undertakings, like in a research protocol. While doing the research project, maintaining some of the original passion will help you to find ways to overcome the daily hassles of research, the misadventures, the difficulties of getting others to collaborate, and the difficulties of getting published ( Appendix Example A11 ).

Sharpening the research question: the pruning

Pruning a research question means cutting away anything that is unnecessary, so that only the essence remains.

The initial spark of an idea will usually lead to some rather general research question. Invariably, this is too ambitious, or so all-encompassing that it cannot be researched (at least not within the time frame of a single grant or PhD project). You have to refine your research question into something that is interesting, yet feasible. To do so, you have to know clearly where you are heading. The emphasis on a clear preconceived idea about what you want to attain by your research often comes as a surprise; some people object: “[…] isn’t research about discovery? How can you know in advance what you want to find?”

The social scientist Verschuren proposed the “wristwatch metaphor”. 20 A researcher is not like a beachcomber, who strolls along the beach to see whether anything valuable washed ashore. Rather, a researcher is like someone who has lost her wristwatch on the beach and returns to search for it. She knows what part of the beach to look, she can describe her wristwatch in detail, and once she has found it, she knows that this is the watch she was looking for. Some further background to these ideas can be found in Appendix B .

Charles Medawar wrote in his Advice to a Young Scientist (page 18) 21 that as much as politics is the ‘art of the possible’, research is the ‘art of the soluble’. A research question should be limited to a question that can be solved with the resources at hand. This does not mean that you should preferentially study “trivial” questions with easy solutions. It does mean that you should seek out your particular niche: something specific, something that was overlooked by others, or some new twist to a general question, so that you can make your own contribution.

The concept of “serendipity” is often invoked when thinking of “seeking novelty”: it means finding something that you were not looking for. For a full discussion of the more complex reality that shows how, in reality, “chance favors a prepared mind”, see Appendix C .

Proceed in the inverse order of the paper that you will write

From the aforementioned, we know that we need a precise aim and a soluble research question.

How can we achieve this? The best approach is to “begin at the end”, that is, the conclusion that you hope to support when you eventually publish your research findings, perhaps many years from now. 22 Most medical research papers have a fixed format: introduction, methods, results, discussion. Usually, the discussion has three parts: summary of the results, discussion of the strengths and limitations, and the importance and interpretation of the findings. There you start: you try to imagine what such last lines of the eventual paper might be – in particular what their intent, their message to the reader might be. Another useful strategy would be to imagine what might be written in the separate box “What this paper adds” that many journals nowadays ask to convey the message from the authors clearly and succinctly to the readers.

The “latent” versus the “stated” objective

The pioneer clinical epidemiologist Feinstein wrote that a good research consultant should be like a good clinician, who first wants to learn from the patient: “What is the chief complaint?”, that is, which is the problem that you want to study. Next, “What will you do with the answer?” 22 The latter question is not just about the potential conclusions of the research paper, but more importantly, their meaning. What is the intended effect (or impact) of the findings? He called this the “latent objective”: what do you want to achieve or change by your project; the “stated objective” is different, it is the type of result that the study will deliver. For example, the stated objective can be that you want to do a randomized trial to compare one intervention versus another and that you will look at recurrence of disease. The latent objective might be that you are concerned that one intervention may be harmful to patients, driven by special interests, and that if this is the case it should be abolished.

Rather analogously, the long-time editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine , Edward Huth, proposed in his book about medical publishing the “So-What” and the “Who-Cares” tests: “What may happen if the paper’s message is correct?”; may it change concepts and treatment or stimulate further exciting research? 23 In fact, many funders now require such an “impact statement” as part of the grant application process.

Experienced research consultants know that when trying to discover the latent objective, it is useful to brush aside the detailed protocol and to ask directly what the meaning of the research is. The meaning of the research is often not clearly stated in a formal study protocol that limits itself more or less to “stated aims”. 24 Like a patient who cannot articulate her/his complaints very well, would-be researchers lose themselves in trivial “side issues” or operational details of the protocol. Appendix Examples A2 and A11 explain the importance of elucidating the underlying frustration of the clinician-researcher to clearly guide a research effort.

After initial questions have set the scene and clarified the “latent objective” of a project, the next questions are more operational, translating the latent objective back into a “stated objective”. 22 The stated objective should be a feasible research project. According to Feinstein, one should ask: what maneuver is to be executed (what intervention, deliberate or not, and how is it administered), what groups are to be compared (and why those groups), and what is the outcome that we will study?

In these phases of discussion, one needs to immerse oneself into the problem: one has to understand it biologically and clinically, and how it is dealt with in the daily practice of health care in the setting in which you will do research. Getting deeply immersed in the problem is the only way of arriving at shrewd or new solutions for studies on vexing medical or public health problems ( Appendix Example A9 ). Mere discussion of technical or procedural aspects of a proposed design, data collection, or analysis will usually not lead to new insights.

Specific pruning questions, to ask yourself or others

In initial discussions, one goes back and forth between the general aim (the latent objective), the scientific questions that follow from it, and the possible research designs (with stated objectives). After feeling secure about the “latent” aim, proceed with more specific questions.

• Try to describe exactly the knowledge gap that you want to fill (ie, the watch that you lost at the beach). Is it about etiology, about pathogenesis, about prognosis? What should change for the benefit of a particular group of patients? Try to be as specific as possible. Do your colleagues see these problems and their solutions as you do? – and if not, why don’t they?
• Once you know the point you want to make, describe what table or figure you need to fill the gap in knowledge, that is, what would your results look like? This means drawing a simple table or graph. Are these the data you want? Will these tables convince your colleagues? What objections might they have? Keep in mind that if the research results go against ingrained beliefs, they will be scrutinized mercilessly, so the important aspects of your research should be able to withstand likely objections.
• Thereafter, the questions become more practical: what study design is needed to produce this table, this figure? Can we do this? Do we have the resources or can we find them?

Be self-critical

You should always remain self-critical about the aspects that threaten the validity of your study ( Appendix Example A12 ). 25 If the practical problems are too large, or the research question too unfeasibly grandiose, it might be wise to settle for a less ambitious aim ( Appendix Example A13 ).

Paraphrasing Miettinen, 26 the first decision is whether you should do the study at all. There might be several reasons to decide not to pursue a study. One might be that arriving at a satisfactory design will be impossible, because of biases that you are unable to solve. It serves no purpose to add another study that suffers from the same unsolved problems as previous studies. For example, it does not serve any purpose to do yet another study that shows lower mortality in vegetarians, if you cannot solve the problems of confounding that vegetarians are persons who have different lifestyles in comparison with others. 27 (If, however, you have found a solution – pursue it at all means!) Nevertheless, thinking about the potential problems and ultimate aims of a seemingly impossible question can foster the development of a new study design or a new method of analysis, ( Appendix Examples A2, A9, and A10 ). In the same vein, deciding that you cannot do a study yourself might make you look for collaboration with persons who have the type of data that you do not, for example, in a different population where it is believed that confounding is not so severe or may even be in the opposite direction.

All studies have imperfections, but you need to be aware which ones you can tolerate. 28 In the early stages of an enquiry, an “imperfect” study might still be worthwhile to see whether “there might be something in it”. For example, time trends or ecological comparisons are often seen as poor study designs to assess causality by themselves, but they can be very valuable in helping to develop ideas, as well as providing a “reality check” about the potential credibility of some hypothesis. 29

Conversely, it is pointless to add yet another study, however perfect, showing what is already known very well – unless you have to do it for “political” purposes, say, for convincing decision makers in your own country.

Finally, it is not a good use of your time to chase something completely improbable or futile. For example, at the present state of the debate, it serves no purpose to add another study about the presence or absence of clinical benefits or harms of homeopathy: no one will change his or her mind about the issue. 30 , 31 An exception might be something that is highly improbable, but that if true might lead to completely revolutionary insights – such an idea might be worth pursuing, even if the initial reaction of outsiders might remain incredulousness. Still, you should pursue unlikely hypotheses knowingly, that is, with the right amount of self-criticism – in particular, to make yourself aware when you are in a blind alley.

To keep yourself on the “straight and narrow”, it helps to form a group of people who cover different aspects of the problem you want to study: clinical, biochemical and physiological, and methodological – to discuss the project as equals. Such discussions can not only be tremendous fun but also will invariably lead to more profound and diverse research questions and will help to find solutions for practical as well as theoretical problems. In the right circumstances of a “machtsfreie Dialog” 32 (a communication in which all are equal and that is only based on rational arguments and not on power – which all scientific debates should be), such a circle of colleagues and friends will help you to be self-critical.

Finally, when pursuing one’s research interests, one should be prepared to learn new skills from other fields or collaborate with others from these fields. If one stays only with the techniques and skills that one knows, it might not lead to the desired answers. 33

What if the data already exist? And you are employed to do a particular analysis with an existing protocol?

Even in the circumstance that the data already exist, it greatly helps to not jump into an analysis, but to think for yourself what you would ideally like to do – if there were no constraints. As Aldrich mentioned, 19 also in that circumstance researchers should still

[…] begin their literature review and conceptual modeling as if they had the luxury of a blank slate […]. Writing without data constraints will, I believe, free their imaginations to range widely over the realm of possibilities, before they are brought to earth by practical necessities.

Moreover, this will make clear what compromises one will make by accepting the available data and the existing analysis protocol. Otherwise, one starts an analysis without being sufficiently aware of the limitations of a particular analysis on particular data.

The difference between explanatory and pragmatic research

A useful distinction is between explanatory and pragmatic research: the former is research that aims at discovery and explanation, whereas the latter is intended to evaluate interventions or diagnostic procedures. The first type of research consists of chasing explanations by pursuing different and evolving hypotheses; the second type of research aims at making decisions about actions in future patients. 27 The two opposites differ strongly in their thinking about the types of studies to pursue (eg, observational vs randomized), about the role of prior specification of a research hypothesis, about the need for “sticking to a prespecified protocol”, and about subgroup analyses and multiplicity of analyses. Some of these will be explained in the following subheadings.

The difference between explanatory and pragmatic trials is sometimes thought to mirror the difference between doing randomized trials versus observational research. However, even for randomized trials, a difference exists between “ pragmatic” and “explanatory” trials (coined first by Schwartz and Lellouch). 34 Because it is not always easy to delineate what aspects of a randomized trial are “pragmatic” or “explanatory”, instruments have been crafted to help researchers and evaluators. 35 , 36 Conversely, not all observational studies are explanatory: some are needed for pragmatic decisions (think about adverse effects of drugs and also about diagnostic evaluations where studies should influence practice guidelines) – while other studies aim at explaining how nature works.

Which iterations should you allow yourself? Anticipating the next project

Thinking about a research problem is a strongly iterative process. 2 , 33 , 37 One starts with a broad aim and then tries out several possible ideas about studies that might lead to better understanding or to better solutions.

Likewise, project proposals characteristically go through many iterations. In the early phases of the research, it is commonplace that the study design or even the research question is changed. Specific suggestions about common research problems and their potential solutions were given by Hulley and Cummings, 2 which we reproduce in Appendix D .

The revision of the aims of a project may be profound, in particular in explanatory research (see “The difference between explanatory and pragmatic research” section), in contrast to pragmatic research (see “Shouldn’t you stick to a predefined protocol?” section). The chemist Whitesides wrote: “Often the objectives of a paper when it is finished are different from those used to justify starting the work. Much of good science is opportunistic and revisionist”. 38 Along a similar line, Medawar proposed that to do justice to the real thought processes of a research undertaking, the discussion section of a paper should come at the beginning, since the thought processes of a scientist start with an expectation about particular results. The expectation determines which findings are of interest and why they will be interpreted in a particular way. 6 He added that in real scientific life, scientists get new ideas (ie, new expectations) while doing their research, but “[…] many of them apparently are ashamed to admit, that hypotheses appear in their mind along uncharted byways of thought”. 6

“Seeing something in the data” can be an important part of scientific discovery. This is often decried as “data dredging”, which it is not: one sees something because of one’s background knowledge and thereby there always is some “prior” that exists – even if that was not specified beforehand in the study protocol. 27 , 39 The word “exploratory” is often misused when it is used to characterize a study. True “exploratory” data analysis would only exists if it is mindlessly done, such as a Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) analysis – but even GWAS analyses have specific aims, which becomes clear when results are interpreted and some findings are designated as “important” and others not. As stated by Rothman:

Hypotheses are not generated by data; they are proposed by scientists. The process by which scientists use their imagination to create hypotheses has no formal methodology […]. Any study, whether considered exploratory or not, can serve to refute a hypothesis. 40

Appendix Examples A5 and A7 show how projects changed mid-course because of a new discovery in the data or in the background knowledge about a research topic.

Generally, it is a good habit to think through what the next project might be, once you will have the result of the project you are currently thinking about, so as to know what direction your research might take. 33

Shouldn’t you stick to a predefined protocol?

Different research aims, in particular along the “explanatory” versus “pragmatic” continuum, may lead to different attitudes on the amount of change that protocols may endure while doing research. 27 , 39 For randomized trials, and also for pragmatic observational research, the research question is usually fixed: does a new therapy lead to better outcomes for a particular group of patients in a particular setting? Because findings from randomized trials or pragmatic observational research may lead to millions of patients to adopt or avoid a particular therapy (which means that their well-being or even life depends on the research) researchers are generally not at liberty to change their hypotheses at the last moment – for example, by suddenly declaring an interest in a particular subgroup. They should stick to the predefined protocol. If a change is needed for practical reasons, it should be clearly stated in the resulting publications. This makes thinking about research questions and doing pilot studies beforehand all the more important (see “Pilot Study” section).

In contrast, much epidemiologic and clinical research tries to explain how nature works. This gives greater leeway: exploration of data can lead to new insights. Thus, “sticking to the protocol” is a good rule for randomized trials and pragmatic observational research, but may be counterproductive for explanatory research. 39 , 41 Nevertheless, it is good to keep track of the changes in your thoughts and in the protocol, even if only for yourself. In practice, many situations are intermediate; in particular when using large available data sets, it often happens that one envisages in a protocol what one would do with the data, only to discover upon opening the data files that the data fall short or are more complex than imagined; this is another reason for doing pilot studies, even with large available data sets (see “Pilot Study” section).

How much literature should you read?

If you are setting up a new research project in a new area, do not start by reading too much. You will quickly drown in the ideas of others. Rather, read a few general reviews that identify unanswered problems. Only return to the literature after you have defined your research question and provisionally your study design. Now, the literature suddenly becomes extremely interesting, since you know what types of papers you need. You also know what the potential objections and shortcomings are of the different design options, because you thought about them yourself. The number of relevant papers usually greatly shrinks, see Appendix Example A4 .

Shouldn’t you do a systematic review first?

It is argued that before embarking on a new piece of research, one should first do a systematic review and/or meta-analysis, because this may help to define the gaps in knowledge more precisely, and guide new research – or may show that the question has been solved. This argument is somewhat circular. A systematic review is a piece of research in itself, intended for publication, and requires much time and effort. Like any piece of research, it requires a clear research question. As such it does not “identify gaps”: a systematic review is about a research question which is already specified, but for which more information is needed. Thus, the main function of the advice to first do a systematic review is to know whether the research question that one has in mind has not yet been solved by others. Perusing the literature in depth is absolutely needed, for example, before embarking on a randomized trial or on a major observational study. However, this is not the same as doing a formal systematic review. In-depth scoping of the literature will suffice. If it is found that potentially valuable studies already exist on the research question that one has in mind, then the new study that one is thinking about may be discarded, and a systematic review should be done instead.

Intermezzo: specific schemes to structure reasoning

Specific schemes have been proposed to guide our reasoning between the stage of delineation of the “gap in knowledge” and the stage of proposing the research design.

The acronym FINER (feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant) was coined by Hulley and Cummings 2 and denotes the different aspects that one should consider to judge a budding research proposal. These words are a good checklist for an in-depth self-scrutiny of your research. The central aspects are the feasibility and whether the possible answers are exciting (and/or much needed).

The PICO format (Patient, Intervention, Control or Comparison, Outcome) is advocated by the evidence-based medicine and Cochrane movements and is very useful for clinical therapeutic research, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 1 , 42 Questions about therapeutic interventions are highly specific, for example, a particular chemotherapeutic scheme (the intervention) is proposed to study survival (the outcome) among young women with a particular form of stage III breast cancer (the patients). This framework is less useful, and becomes a bit pointless, for etiologic research about generalizable questions such as: “Does smoking cause lung cancer?” which applies to all humans and to different types of smoking. Of course, all research will be done in particular population, with particular smoking habits, but this does not necessarily define the research question. Some of the first investigations about smoking and lung cancer were done in male doctors aged ≥35 years in the UK 43 – this was a very convenient group to research, but being a male doctor in the UK is not part of the research question.

The PICO format is thus most applicable for pragmatic research. A much more detailed and elaborate scheme for pragmatic research was proposed by the US Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) which has published Methodology Standards, including “Standards for Formulating Research Questions”. While we would not agree with all six standards, junior investigators may find the structure useful as they think through their options – especially for pragmatic research questions. 44

Counterfactual reasoning 3 emphasizes those aspects of the “ideal randomized trial” that should be mimicked by an observational study. A key question is whether your study is addressing a hypothesis that could in theory be studied in a randomized trial. For example, if the research question is “does smoking cause lung cancer?”, then this is a question that could in theory (but not in practice) be addressed by randomizing study participants to be smokers or nonsmokers. In this situation, it may be useful to design your observational study with the intention of obtaining the same answer that would have been obtained if you had been able to do a randomized trial.

However, the aims of explanatory observational research are different from those of randomized trials. 27 Explanatory research about disease etiology may involve “states” like being female, being old, being obese, having hypertension, having a high serum cholesterol, carrying the BrCa1 gene, and so on, as causes of disease. None of these causes are interventions. In contrast, RCTs focus on what to do to change particular causes: which interventions are feasible and work? For example, being female might expose a person to job discrimination; the intervention might be to have women on the appointment committee or to use some kind of positive discrimination. Likewise, the gene for phenylketonuria leads to disease, but the intervention is to change the diet. For carriers of BRCa1 genes, different strategies can be evaluated in RCTs to evaluate their effectiveness in preventing premature death due to breast cancer: frequent screening, prophylactic mastectomy, hormone treatment, and so on – which may have different effects. For obesity or hypertension or hypercholesterolemia, different types of interventions are possible – with potentially different effects and different adverse effects.

The interventionist outlook, that is, trying to mimic an RCT, can be very useful, for some type of observational studies, for example, about the adverse effects of drugs. It helps to make certain that one can mimic an “intervention” (ie, patients starting to use particular drugs) that is specific and consistent in groups of patients that are comparable (more technically, exchangeable – meaning that the results of the investigation would not change if the persons exposed and nonexposed were swapped). These conditions can be met in a credible way, if there are competing drugs for a similar indication, so that there is an active drug comparator: the interventions (use of different drugs in different patients) will be well defined, and the patients on the different drugs will tend to be comparable. This works particularly well if you are focusing on adverse drug effects that were unknown or unpredictable at the time of prescription. 45 , 46 For example, you may obtain more valid findings in a study that compares the adverse effects of two different beta agonists for asthma care (ie, two different drugs within the same class), than to design a study which compares patients who are prescribed beta agonists with patients who are prescribed other asthma medication, or no medication at all – because the latter might be a highly different group of patients. 47

As mentioned, there are some important studies about causes of diseases where a randomized trial is not feasible, even in theory. In particular, there are various “states” which are major causes of disease (obesity, cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, etc). These states strongly affect the risks of disease and death, but cannot be randomized. For example, it is difficult to conceive of randomizing study participants to be obese or not obese; however, we could randomize them for the reduction of obesity, for example, through exercise, but such a study would assess the effects of a particular intervention, not of obesity itself. Still, it remains important to estimate the overall effects of obesity, that is, to answer the question “would this group of people have had different health status, on the average, if they had not been obese”. In this situation, the concept of “interventions” is not relevant to designing your study (at least in the way that the term “intervention” is commonly used). What is more relevant is simply to focus on the counterfactual contrast which is being assessed (eg, a body mass index [BMI] of 35 versus a BMI of 25), without specifying how this contrast came about.

A technique that has gone hand in hand with counterfactual reasoning in epidemiology is drawing DAGs; several introductions to DAG theory can be found in epidemiologic textbooks. 3 , 48 DAGs can be useful in the brainstorming phase of a study, after the general research question has been defined. At this stage, a general structure for the study is envisaged and the complexity of the causal processes needs clarification. A DAG can be extremely useful for illustrating the context in which a causal question is being asked, the assumptions that will be involved in the analyses (eg, whether a particular risk factor is a confounder, a mediator, or a col-lider), and help us question the validity of our reasoning. 49 Using DAGs helps us also decide which variables we need to collect information on and how they should be measured and defined. Given that DAGs root in causal thinking, their construction is, of necessity, subjective.

Preparation: pilot study, protocol, and advance writing

Doing a pilot study and collecting ancillary information about feasibility.

May I now start? is a question heard after lengthy deliberations about the research question and the potential studies that follow from it. Such deliberations almost invariably produce a lot of enthusiasm and exhilaration – because they are fun. The researcher wants to begin collecting data or start the analysis. However, Crombie and Davies, in their chapter about “Developing the research question” state emphatically: “Don’t rush into a study”. 16 Separate from doing a pilot study, which is about the procedures of your study, you may also need to collect ancillary information before actually starting your study.

Pilot study

Even if you think you are totally certain of what you want, you should first do a pilot study, based on a brief protocol. 2 , 22 That initial protocol should be easy to write. You have already discussed the aim and design of your study. Write them down. You expect a particular type of information that is essential and that will tell the essence of your message (a particular 2-by-2 or X-by-Y table, a particular graph), which you can describe.

Pilot studies are not done to know the likely direction of the results; instead, the aim is to see whether you will be able to perform the procedures of your study – and ultimately whether that really is the study you want to do. 50 The aim is to save yourself from embarrassment: data that very surprisingly do not turn out to be what you expected, questionnaires that are misunderstood or do not deliver the answers that you need or that are not returned, laboratories that do not produce, patients who do not show up, heads of other departments who block access to their patients or materials, or yourself who needs more time to manage the complexity of the undertaking.

We have never heard of someone who was sorry for having done a pilot. Conversely, we know many persons who found out at much personal embarrassment and institutional cost that their project was unfeasible. In intermediate cases, the pilot may show the need to change questionnaires or procedures before the study goes ahead.

In principle, a pilot study should be exactly like your final study and test out all your procedures on a small number of persons. Often, it is better to approach the task piecemeal and pilot different aspects of the research one by one.

A tough question is how to do pilot studies and pilot analyses when ethical or institutional review board approval is necessary for some of the actions in a pilot study. One solution might be to avoid piloting some procedures; for example, try parts of the procedure – for example, you may not be able to randomize in a pilot, but you may be able to try out data collection procedures and forms. There is a degree of circularity about piloting, also in obtaining funding, as one may need funding for the pilot. In practice, the best step might be to ask the ethics committee or review board of your institute which aspects of the research can be piloted and under what conditions.

In Appendix E , several questions that you might ask in pilot studies are listed. They may lead to profound reassessments of your research – particularly if you are piloting the collection of new data, but also if the research involves analyses of existing data.

Ancillary information

It may be necessary to collect additional information about event rates or standard deviations of measurements to calculate the statistical precision that might be obtained. Also, sometimes you need other ways of “testing the water” like procedures to streamlining data collection from different centers in order to know whether the study is feasible. Depending on the study size and importance, such activities may become studies in themselves and actually take a lot of time and money.

Advance writing of paper: before full data collection and/or analysis

Whitesides’ advice is:

The key to efficient use of your and my time is that we start exchanging outlines and proposals as early in a project as possible. Do not, under any circumstances, wait until the collection of data is ‘complete’ before starting to write an outline. 38

After the pilot study, you have a firm grasp of all elements that are necessary for a scientific paper: introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussion. In the introduction, you explain why you have done this research. Almost always, an introduction comprises three ideas: what is the general problem? what is the particular research question? what study will you perform to answer that question? This is followed by the materials and methods section. They have been extensively discussed and have been fine-tuned in the study protocol and the pilot study. Thereafter come the results sections. By now, you know what tables or figures you want and how you can obtain them, but not what the final numbers will look like. You will also have an idea about the auxiliary tables that you might need to explain your data to others (such as a table with the baseline characteristics or an additional table with a subgroup analysis). You can now draft the layouts of all these tables. Visualizing the presentation of your results in advance is the “bare minimum” of writing in advance.

Finally, the discussion section. Can you write a discussion before you know the final data? Of course you can; you even must think ahead. In principle, there are only three possible outcomes: the study can give the results that you hoped for; it can show the inverse; or something indeterminate in between. In all instances, you can imagine how you will react. One possibility is that you are disappointed by the results of your study, and you will tend to find excuses for why it did not produce the results you hoped for. What excuses might your produce? The other possibility is that it does show what you wanted; then you may have to imagine how others will react and what their objections might be. If the results are indeterminate, everybody might be disappointed, and you will need to explain the failure of your research to give clear-cut results. When you detect a specific weakness by imagining this situation, you may wish to change aspects of your study.

As we explain in Appendix F , there is no need to write a very extensive paper as a first draft – on the contrary, it might be more useful to write a short paper, which has the advantage that others will more readily read it and comment on it.

Never be afraid to discuss your study at all stages extensively with others, not only your immediate research colleagues but also semi-outsiders and also in this advance-writing stage. If you know, or are told by others, that a particular direction of your results might not be believed and therefore draw criticism because of some potential deficiency in your study, why not remedy it at this stage? Looking at what you have written, or by discussing potential results with others, you will be able to imagine more clearly what your readers and critical colleagues might object to.

Writing a paper beforehand is the ultimate test of whether the research project is what you wanted, whether your reasoning flows logically, or whether you forgot something. The initial draft will be a yardstick for yourself and for others – whatever happens during the course of your research. This will help you to surmount surprise happenings: you have written down where you started and why, and therefore you will also know very securely when and why you have to take a detour – or even a U-turn.

Writing is difficult and time-consuming. Writing a paper can easily take 5–10 revisions, which might span a full year (inclusive of the time it takes your supervisor or your colleagues to produce comments). During the writing, you will often be obliged to go back to the data and do additional or different analyses. Since your paper will need many revisions, and this will take such a long time, why not take a head-start at the beginning of your data collection? It will save frustration and lost time at the end of your project.

Many guidelines and advices exist about writing, both about the substance (how to use words and phrases) and about the process. All beginning researchers should have a look at some books and papers about writing, and seasoned researchers can still profit from rereading them. Several reporting guidelines exist for several types of studies (RCTs, observational, diagnostic research, etc). They are often very detailed, in describing what should be in title, abstract, and so on. Although they should not be mechanically adhered to, 28 they help writing. In Appendix F , we have collected some wisdom that we particularly liked; several books on writing are listed, as well as reporting guidelines that help researchers to craft papers that are readable and contain all the information that is necessary and useful to others.

Now you can start “your research”

After the piloting and after having written your paper, you are ready to start your data collection, your analysis, or whatever is needed to “do your research”.

The work that is needed before you can start to “do your research” will take a great deal of time and effort. What will you have achieved after setting up a piece of research following the lengthy and involved precepts of this paper? You will have specified a limited research question that you will solve. You will add one little shining stone to the large mosaic of science. At the time that you do the study, you may still be too close to see its effect on the overall picture. That will come over the years.

Further reading

Some texts that we mention in the paper might be especially worthwhile for further reading; see Appendix G .

Acknowledgments

We thank Miguel Hernán, Stuart Pocock, and Bianca De Stavola for their informative comments on an earlier draft manuscript, as well as two anonymous reviewers of Clinical Epidemiology . The Centre for Global NCDs is supported by the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund (097834/Z/11/B). This work was also supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013 / ERC grant agreement number 668954).

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Writing a Research Question: Home

Rewrite your topic as a research question.

Taking a little time at the start of your research to really think about your topic will save you time later on.  Rewriting your topic as a question is a good way to focus your research and later can be reworked into your thesis statement. 

First, consider your purpose for the paper : Is it to inform or persuade?  Go back and look at the assignment if needed.  Does it contain words like explain or describe?  If so, your paper is probably intended to be informative. If it uses words like argue, prove, or defend it is probably persuasive. 

How would this change my research question?

Let's say you chose veganism as your topic.

If it is an informative paper, your research question might be: What are the basic principles of a vegan diet?

If it is a persuasive paper, your research question might be: How is a vegan diet healthier?

Next> Identifying Keywords

Previous> Selecting a Topic

- Return to the Beginning -

• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 2:43 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mchenry.edu/writingaresearchquestion

Getting Started: Library Research Strategy

• Choosing Your Topic
• Gathering Background Information
• Defining Key Terms

Crafting a Research Question

• Gathering Relevant Information
• Evaluating Sources This link opens in a new window
• Formulating a Thesis Statement
• Avoiding Plagiarism This link opens in a new window
• Citation Styles This link opens in a new window
• What makes a good research question?
• How To Video

A research question guides and centers your research. It helps you avoid the pitfall of finding too much information and drives the research to a defined end.

Choose a general topic of interest and conduct preliminary research on this topic in current periodicals and journals to see what research has already been done. This will help determine what kinds of questions the topic generates. Once you have conducted preliminary research, consider: Who is the audience? Is it an academic essay, or will it be read by a more general public? Once you have conducted preliminary research, start asking openended “How?” “What?” and Why?” questions. Then evaluate possible responses to those questions.

Here's an example:

Idea: Reality television

Research question: In what ways did the writers' strike of 2008 affect the rise in popularity of reality television?

As you find and review your sources, you will discover the answer to your research question. That answer becomes your thesis statement.

Watch this video for tips on how to formulate a defined question to drive your research and help you avoid the pitfall of too much information. Just click on the title above to access the video. ( Transcript  | 4:54)

• << Previous: Defining Key Terms
• Next: Gathering Relevant Information >>
• Last Updated: Mar 11, 2024 4:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.chapman.edu/strategy

Chapter 1: Research Questions

Influence of a research question.

Whether you’re developing research questions for your personal life, your work for an employer, or for academic purposes, the process always forces you to figure out exactly:

• What you’re interested in finding out.
• What it’s feasible for you to find out (given your time, money, and access to information sources).
• How you can find it out, including what research methods will be necessary and what information sources will be relevant.
• What kind of claims you’ll be able to make or conclusions you’ll be able to draw about what you found out.

For academic purposes, you may have to develop research questions to carry out both large and small assignments. A smaller assignment may be to do research for a class discussion or to, say, write a blog post for a class; larger assignments may have you conduct research and then report it in a lab report, poster, term paper, or article.

For large projects, the research question (or questions) you develop will define or at least heavily influence:

• Your topic , in that research questions effectively narrow the topic you’ve first chosen or been assigned by your instructor.
• What, if any, hypotheses you test.
• Which information sources are relevant to your project.
• Which research methods are appropriate.

What claims you can make or conclusions you can come to as a result of your research, including what thesis statement you should write for a term paper or what results section you should write about the data you collected in your own science or social science study.

Your research question drives your hypothesis, research methods, sources, and your claims or conclusions.

Influence on Thesis

Within an essay, poster, or term paper, the thesis is the researcher’s answer to the research question(s). So as you develop research questions, you are effectively specifying what any thesis in your project will be about. While perhaps many research questions could have come from your original topic, your question states exactly which one(s) your thesis will be answering.

For example, a topic that starts out as “desert symbiosis” could eventually result in a research question that is “how does the diversity of bacteria in the gut of the Sonoran Desert termite contribute to the termite’s survival?” In turn, the researcher’s thesis will answer that particular research question instead of the numerous other questions that could have come from that topic.

It’s all part of a process that leads to greater and greater specificity.

Tip: Don’t Make These Mistakes

Sometimes students inexperienced at working with research questions confuse them with the search statements they will type into the search box of a search engine or database when looking for sources for their project. Or, they confuse research questions with the thesis statement they will write when they report their research.

Activity: From Topic to Thesis Statement

Open activity in a web browser.

Influence on Hypothesis

If you’re doing a study that predicts how variables are related, you’ll have to write at least one hypothesis. The research questions you write will contain the variables that will later appear in your hypothesis(es).

Activity: Guess the Question

Despite how strong their influence is on the rest of the researcher’s tasks, research questions don’t often appear in a report of the research. Nonetheless, you can usually figure out what the researcher’s research questions were by reading the title and some of the report. Take a look at this article “Getting to the Center of a Tootsie Roll Pop®” [OSU login required] and determine what the students’ research question was.

Influence on Resources

You can’t tell whether an information resource is relevant to your research until you know exactly what you’re trying to find out. Since it’s the research questions that define that, it’s they that divide all information sources into two groups: those that are relevant to your research and those that are not—all based on whether each can help you find out what you want to find out and/or report the answer.

Influence on Research Methods

Your research questions will help you figure out what research methods you should use because the questions reflect what your research is intended to do. For instance, if your research question relates to describing a group, survey methods may work well. But they can’t answer cause-and-effect questions.

Influence on Claims or Conclusions

The research questions you write will reflect whether your research is intended to describe a group or situation, to explain or predict outcomes, or to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship(s) among variables. It’s those intentions and how well you carry out the study, including whether you used methods appropriate to the intentions, that will determine what claims or conclusions you can make as a result of your research.

Activity: Quick Check

Answer to activity:  guess the question.

The answer to the “Guess the Question” Activity above is:

What was the students’ research question? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?

• Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research. Authored by : Teaching & Learning, Ohio State University Libraries. Provided by : The Ohio State University. Located at : https://osu.pb.unizin.org/choosingsources/ . License : CC BY: Attribution

User-friendly Legal Science pp 47–83 Cite as

The Research Question, Theories and Methods

• Petri Mäntysaari 2  
• First Online: 29 March 2017

542 Accesses

Scientific research is theory based. There are various kinds of discipline-specific requirements relating to the choice of theories, research questions and methods. In User-friendly Legal Science, the choice of the research question, the theoretical framework and the methods must reflect the discipline’s particular characteristics. There are fundamental differences between User-friendly Legal Science and other areas of legal science in this respect. These differences reflect the unique point of view of User-friendly Legal Science.

• Corporate Governance
• Method Theory
• Secondary Source
• Methodological Rigour

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Strydom H ( 2014 ), p. 149.

For a review of ethical standards, see Glerup C, Horst M ( 2014 ). For the minimum requirements, see, for example, Torstendahl R ( 2005 ), p. 214.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine ( 1992 ) 2 Scientific Principles and Research Practices, pp. 36–39.

See, for example, Mæhle S ( 2015 ); Sandgren C ( 2005 ); Graver HP ( 2008 ); Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), pp. 127–128 and 152.

Quine WV ( 1975 ), pp. 75–76: “The channels by which, having learned observation sentences, we acquire theoretical language, are the very same channels by which observation lends evidence to scientific theory … We see, then, a strategy for investigating the relation of evidential support, between observation and scientific theory.”

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 3. See also ibid .

For socio-legal research, see Banakar R, Travers M ( 2005b ), p. 2.

Kaplan A ( 1964 ) § 1 p 4. For historiography, see Torstendahl R ( 2005 ), pp. 214–215.

Bourdieu P ( 1975 ), p. 21.

For the drawbacks of interdisciplinary research in this respect, see Banakar R, Travers M ( 2005b ), p. 6.

Bryman A ( 2007 ), p. 16.

See, for example, Wesel U ( 1974 ), p. 353 on the illusions of legal positivism.

For economics, see Friedman M ( 1953 ), p. 6: “Agreement about the economic consequences of the legislation might not produce complete agreement about its desirability, for differences might still remain about its political or social consequences; but, given agreement on objectives, it would certainly go a long way toward producing consensus.” For legal history, see Duss V ( 2012 ), p. 988: “Zunächst ist ein Konsens dahingehend zu konstatieren, dass sich eine Kritik der Methode ohne Kritik am Textinhalt als Unmöglichkeit darstellt. Die Frage danach, welche Funktion der Text erfülle, welcher Textgattung er angehöre, welchen Adressaten er im Auge habe, seien zwingend mitbestimmend für die Methodenwahl - eine Tatsache zu nennende Eigenheit von Texten, die sich nur schwerlich bis gar nicht von der Hand weisen lässt, wenn man die Performanz und die Funktion von Text im Auge behält.” For practice research, see Saurama E, Julkunen I ( 2012 ), p. 67: “In other words, practice research is value-laden.”

Saurama E, Julkunen I ( 2012 ), p. 70: “The Mertonian norms of science say that a researcher needs to seclude him or herself from the subject matter and neutralize her own influence on the field of study. We have identified this problem realizing that a researcher needs to be able to perform different kinds of mental transformations during the research. When gathering the research material, discussing, perceiving and interviewing, he or she might well identify him or herself with the work group and users, but the analysis of the material, must be based upon tried research methods.”

See, for example, Graver HP ( 2008 ), pp. 164–166; Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 152.

See, for example, Patel R, Davidson B ( 2012 ), p. 15.

See Gilbert N ( 2008 ), section 3.5 pp. 57–58.

Bryman A ( 2007 ), p. 6.

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 152 on historical research.

Strydom H ( 2014 ), p. 150: “The purposes of research have been described differently by different authors … The terms research designs, strategies, purposes, objectives, goals or aims are … used interchangeably by various authors.”

Strydom H ( 2014 ), p. 151 on the basis of a literature review: “More than one purpose can be delineated for the same study, but one will normally dominate a particular study …”.

Fouché CB, De Vos AS ( 2011 ), pp. 94–99.

Babbie E ( 2016 ), p. 90. See also Strydom H ( 2014 ).

Tracy SJ ( 2010 ), pp. 839: “… high quality qualitative methodological research is marked by (a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence.”

Ibid, pp. 840–841.

Davis MS ( 1971 ); Bartunek JM, Rynes SL, Ireland RD ( 2006 ), p. 11.

Sandberg J, Alvesson M ( 2011 ), pp. 28–29.

Alvesson M, Sandberg J ( 2011 ), p. 249.

Ibid, p. 247.

See Davis MS ( 1971 ); Davis MS ( 1986 ); Alvesson M, Sandberg J ( 2011 ), p. 247.

Alvesson M, Sandberg J ( 2011 ), p. 254. For the methodological principles for identifying, articulating, and challenging assumptions, see p. 256.

Ibid, p. 254.

Ibid, pp. 254–255.

See ibid , pp. 254 and 256.

For management accounting, see Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A ( 1993 ), p. 246.

Peirce CS ( 1931–1935 ), 1.54.

See, for example, Mäntysaari P ( 2012 ), pp. 69–74.

See Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 121 on historical research.

Ibid , p. 119.

See, for example, Fallon RH Jr. ( 1999 ), p. 562: “… I have argued that the selection of a constitutional theory should be based largely on instrumental grounds. Among theories satisfying a fit requirement, the best will be that which most optimally promotes mixed, weighted interests in the rule of law, political democracy, and appropriately specified substantive rights.”

Mæhle SS ( 2015 ), p. 157.

Mäntysaari P ( 2013 ); Mäntysaari ( 2015 ); Mäntysaari P ( 2016b ).

See Mäntysaari P ( 2010a ); Mäntysaari P ( 2012 ).

For method theories, see Lukka K, Vinnari E ( 2014 ); Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 1 p. 4.

See, for example, Olsen L ( 2004 ), pp. 130–131.

For interpretive management accounting research, see Elharidy AM, Nicholson B, Scapens RW ( 2008 ), p. 142: “… IMAR is eclectic, as it draws on various research methods, theoretical frameworks and perspectives to provide better understandings or explanations of the substantive research phenomena. To achieve understanding, interpretive researchers study diversity …” For legal history, see Duss V ( 2012 ), p. 989: “Weiter wurde die Frage nach dem theoriegeleiteten Arbeiten erneut diskutiert, also der Übernahme fachfremder (?) theoretischer Konzepte. Es scheint mittlerweile als Geschmacksache empfunden zu werden, ob und welche Theorien (Luhmann, Derrida, Bourdieu, Foucault u. a.) man den anverwandten Disziplinen entleiht, solange man über Theorieapplikation, Umfang des sowie Gründe für den Eklektizismus Rechenschaft ablegt.”

See Whaples R, Morris AP, Moorhouse JC ( 1998 ); Fleischer H ( 2001 ).

See, for example, Duss V ( 2012 ), p. 989.

See already Augustine of Hippo , De doctrina christiana, Third Book, XXX.

See also Ross A ( 1958 ), p. 20: “The social phenomena which are the subject of sociology of law do not acquire their specific legal character until they are placed in relation to the norms of the law in force.”

See Mäntysaari P ( 2010b ).

Bryman A ( 2008 ), p. 160: “‘Methods’ might be instruments of data collection like questionnaires, interviews or observation; they might refer to the tools used for analysing data, which might be statistical techniques or extracting themes from unstructured data; or the term might refer to aspects of the research process like sampling.”

Mæhle SS ( 2015 ), p. 127 on the legal research process generally.

Bryman A ( 2008 ), p. 160: “It is concerned with uncovering the practices and assumptions of those who use methods of different kinds.” Mæhle SS ( 2015 ), p. 127: “Sett i dette perspektivet er forskningsmetodikk det teoretiske grunnlaget og de refleksjonene som ligger til grunn for valg av metode(r) som trengs for å gjennomføre forskningsarbeidet.”

In linear and positivist research, however, it is assumed that one can both choose the method and scuritinise it ex ante.

Torstendahl R ( 2005 ), p. 215.

See also Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 4 p. 28.

Feyerabend PK ( 1975 ).

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 163.

Weber M ( 1922 ).

Popper K ( 2005 ), number 85.

There is a similar distinction even in natural sciences. Ross A ( 1958 ), pp. 319–320.

Weber M ( 1904 ), p. 148: “… denn wir sind der Meinung, daß es niemals Aufgabe einer Erfahrungswissenschaft sein kann, bindende Normen und Ideale zu ermitteln, um daraus für die Praxis Rezepte ableiten zu können.”

Ross A ( 1958 ), p. 20: “The social phenomena which are the subject of sociology of law do not acquire their specific legal character until they are placed in relation to the norms of the law in force.”

Moorhead R ( 2010 ).

La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW( 1998 ). See also Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A ( 2008 ); Djankov S, Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A ( 2003 ).

See, for example, Banakar R ( 2006 ), p. 76 on a study in legal sociology: “Why is he focusing on the discourses of legal theory, if his intention is to examine the ‘standpoint of legal actors’ and legal processes through which political values are transformed into legal concepts.”

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 129.

Giddens A ( 1979 ), p. 230; Giddens A ( 1988 ), p. 416. See also Subrt J ( 2012 ), pp. 403–404.

von Ranke L ( 1885 ), p. VII: “Man hat der Historie das Amt, die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, beigemessen: so hoher Ämter unterbindet sich gegenwärtiger Versuch nicht: er will blos zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen.”

Goldthorpe JH ( 1991 ), p. 212.

Posner RA ( 2002 ), p. 1314.

See even Mäntysaari P ( 2013 ).

Zweigert K, Kötz H ( 1996 ), § 3 II: “Grundsätzlich ist bei der Durchforschung ausländischer Rechte jegliche Beschränkung zu meiden. Das gilt namentlich für die Frage, was alles als ‘Rechtsquelle’ heranzuziehen ist. Rechtsquelle im Sinne rechtsvergleichender Forschung ist alles, was das Rechtsleben der herangezogenen Ordnung gestaltet oder mitgestaltet.”

For source pluralism generally, see Ehrlich E ( 1912 /1967); Teubner G ( 1997 ); Myrdal J ( 2007 ).

Compare Dagan H ( 2011 ), p. xviii: “For legal realists, the profound and inescapable reason for doctrinal indeterminacy is the availability of multiple and potentially applicable doctrinal sources.” For legal history, see Berman HJ ( 1983 ), p. 8: “… the law includes not only legal institutions, legal commands, legal decisions, and the like, but also what legal scholes … say about those legal institutions, commands, and decisions. The law contains within itself a legal science, a meta-law, by which it can be both analyzed and evaluated.”

Cases are relevant regardless of connections to a certain legal family and the civil law or common law traditions. See, for example, Guével D ( 2012 ), p. 34, Introduction, III, 2, no 47: “Comme toutes les autres branches du droit francais, conformément à notre tradition romaniste, le droit commercial et des affaires a pour source principale les textes. C’est une source officielle et le support privilégié d’un droit, non pas fait de “cases” à l’anglo-saxonne, mais de règles de principe, éventuellement assorties de temperaments et d’exceptions. Les textes sont traditionellement classes hiérarchiquement.”

You can find an example in Mäntysaari P ( 2005 ), section 2.3 and Mäntysaari P ( 2010a ), section 8.2.

Husa J ( 2009 ), p. 477.

See, for example, Bryman A ( 2011 ); Lundahl U, Skärvad PH ( 1999 ).

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 159: “När vi tolkar skriftliga källor ägnar vi oss oftast åt någon form av kvalitativ metod. Här handlar det om att uttolka textens mening eller djupare innebörd.”

See also Sandgren C ( 2005 ), pp. 316–317.

See, for example, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW ( 1998 ) in which the authors focused on particular issues according to their own preferences.

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME ( 2007 ), Pratt MG ( 2009 ).

Generally, see Scapens RW ( 1990 ); Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ).

Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 2 p. 14.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 26.

According to Glaser and Strauss, concepts should be analytic and sensitizing. Ibid , pp. 38–39.

Ibid , p. 5: “[G]rounded theory is derived from data and then illustrated by characteristic examples of data.” Ibid , p. 23: “In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence; then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept.”

See already Augustine of Hippo , De doctrina christiana, Third Book, XXV.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 5 on “exampling”.

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME ( 2007 ), p. 26.

Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), pp. 119–120.

Ibid, p. 120.

Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 38 p. 332.

Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), p. 120.

Kaplan A ( 1964 ), § 41 p. 351; Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), p. 120.

Ibid , p. 120.

Ibid , p. 121.

See, for example, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW ( 1998 ) in which the authors gave particular facts a numerical value according to their own preferences.

Bryant JM ( 1994 ), pp. 13–14: “[A]ll works of historiography are woven from two distinguishable strands: what might be called reportage on the one hand, and interpretation on the other. Reportage consists of information that pertains to basic questions of what, where, when, who, how many, etc. … Interpretation involves establishing the meaning and the significance of these historical ‘facts’, i.e., the materials that constitute reportage … Historical sociologists … thus encounter primary materials in the reportage of historians …” See also Subrt J ( 2012 ), p. 405.

Kelsen H ( 1934 ).

Compare White JB ( 2002 ), p. 1398: “Truth has a place in the law, a crucially important place, but it is hard to see and explain what this is.”

Wittgenstein L ( 1922 ), 1.13: “Die Tatsachen im logischen Raum sind die Welt.” 2.1: “Wir machen uns Bilder der Tatsachen.” 2.14: “Das Bild besteht darin, dass sich seine Elemente in bestimmter Art und Weise zu einander verhalten.” 2.12: “Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit.” 2.21: “Das Bild stimmt mit der Wirklichkeit überein oder nicht; es ist richtig oder unrichtig, wahr oder falsch.” 2.06: “Das Bestehen und Nichtbestehen von Sachverhalten ist die Wirklichkeit. (Das Bestehen von Sachverhalten nennen wir auch eine positive, das Nichtbestehen eine negative Tatsache.)” 2.063: “Die gesamte Wirklichkeit ist die Welt.”

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 32 (theory as process); Peirce CS ( 1931–1935 ), 3.432.

Fleck L ( 1979 ) Chapter 2, Section 1. Originally published in 1935.

Kuhn TS ( 1962 ).

Johansson LG ( 2015 ), p. 103.

See Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M ( 1992 ), pp. 8–9.

See Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 16.

Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2; Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), p. 1281.

For the linear model, see Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E, Welch C ( 2010 ), p. 110.

Yin defines “construct validity” as “establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied”. Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2.

Yin defines “internal validity” as something limited to explanatory or causal studies. It means “establishing a causal relationship”. Ibid, Chapter 2.

Yin defines “reliability” as “demonstrating that the operations of a study - such as the data collection procedures - can be repeated, with the same results”. Ibid, Chapter 2.

See Miles MB ( 1979 ); Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), pp. 1281–1282.

See Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), p. 1282.

See ibid , p. 1282 on qualitative case research: “These conditions result in uncertainty about how to conduct ‘good’ case research and how to convince reviewers, editors, and the broader audience of readers of the real value of qualitative research and single case studies. There are certain problems in persuading advocates of the positivist school about the benefits of a research process in which frameworks evolve during the course of the study … Therefore, in order to convince the scientific community, qualitative researchers have to fight ‘an uphill battle to persuade their readers’ …”.

Ibid , p. 1282 on qualitative case research.

Wittgenstein L ( 1922 ), Vorwort.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), pp. 228–233.

See also Tracy SJ ( 2010 ), p. 839 on the characteristics of “high quality qualitative methodological research”.

See European Commission ( 2010 , 2013 ). See also European Science Foundation, ALLEA ( 2011 ), Section 1.2.

European Science Foundation, ALLEA ( 2011 ), Section 1.3.

According to Tracy SJ ( 2010 ), p. 848, “meaningful coherence” means that qualitative studies should “(a) achieve their stated purpose; (b) accomplish what they espouse to be about; (c) use methods and representations practices that partner well with espoused theories and paradigms; and (d) attentively interconnect literature reviewed with research foci, methods, and findings”.

Torstendahl R ( 2005 ); Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), pp. 150–151.

For thought processes, see James Joyce’s Ulysses.

See Bourdieu P ( 1992 ), Part II, I.

A Bourdieu is a Bourdieu.

Peirce CS ( 1931–1935 ), 3.432.

See also Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), pp. 224–225.

A couple of examples: Saint Augustine ( Augustine of Hippo ) referred to Virgil several times in his major work De civitate Dei. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to Augustine (Saint Augustine), Damascene (Saint John Damascene), Philosopher (Aristoteles), and Apostle (Paul) when discussing the existence of God in his work Summa Theologica. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) referred to prior theory in his biography of Jesus of Nazareth. This was regardless of the dogma of papal infallibility.

Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2.

See, for example, Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A ( 1993 ), p. 258: “The main condition of validity of constructions is clearly that they work (i.e., solve the problems in question).”

See, for example, Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), pp. 121–126.

Dubois A, Gadde LE ( 2014 ), p. 1282, citing Ruddin LP ( 2006 ).

Yin RK ( 2014 ), Chapter 2, defining “construct validity” as “establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied”, “internal validity” as “establishing a causal relationship”, and “external validity” as “establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized”.

See, for example, Torstendahl R ( 2005 ); Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 149; Johansson LG ( 2015 ) section 4.5 .

Berglund L, Ney A ( 2015 ), p. 149.

Ibid , pp. 151–152.

See, for example, ibid , p. 151.

Merton RK ( 1968 ); Boudon R ( 1991 ).

For management accounting, see Lukka K, Kasanen E ( 1995 ), p. 72: “These generalized conclusions may be of several types: − conceptual frameworks, which offer us the possibility to discuss the subject area in general; − descriptive models, attempting to show ‘how things are’ in the problem field, covering more objects than the studied ones; − explanatory models, which attempt to capture the significant general relationships in the subject area; − prescriptive models, offering solutions to practical problems and guidance for further decision making in other similar, or corresponding, organizations.”

MacIntyre A ( 2007 ), p. 121 (generally): “They will be prefaced not by universal quantifiers but by some such phrase as ‘characteristically and for the most part…’ But just these … turned out to be the characteristics of the generalizations which actual empirical social scientists claim with good reason to have discovered.” Lukka K, Kasanen E ( 1995 ), p. 73 (management accounting).

Weber M ( 1904 ), II.

Peirce CS ( 1931−1935 ), 3.432.

Durkheim É ( 1894 ), Chapter III.

Lukka K, Kasanen E ( 1995 ), p. 82.

Ibid, p. 76.

Popper K ( 2005 ), numbers 36, 38 and 43.

Yates SJ ( 2004 ), p. 15: “Theories in social sciences can vary between abstract general approaches (such as functionalism) and fairly low-level theories to explain specific phenomena (such as voting behaviour, delinquency, aggressiveness). By and large, the theories that are most likely to receive empirical attention are those which are at a fairly low level of generality.”

Glaser BG, Strauss AL ( 1967 ), p. 242.

Alvesson M, Sandberg J (2011) Generating research questions through problematization. Acad Manag Rev 36(2):247–271

Google Scholar  

Augustine of Hippo (426–427) De doctrina christiana

Babbie E (2016) The practice of social research, 14th edn. Cengage Learning, Boston

Banakar R (2006) How can sociology and jurisprudence learn from each other? A reply to Mauro Zamboni. Retfærd 29(2):75–84

Banakar R, Travers M (2005b) Law, sociology and method. In: Banakar R, Travers M (eds) Theory and method in socio-legal research. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland Oregon, pp 1–25

Bartunek JM, Rynes SL, Ireland RD (2006) What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Acad Manag J 49(1):9–15

Article   Google Scholar  

Berglund L, Ney A (2015) Historikerns hantverk: Om historieskrivning, teori och metod. Studentlitteratur, Lund

Berman HJ (1983) Law and revolution: the formation of the Western legal tradition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Boudon R (1991) What middle-range theories are. Contemp Sociol (Am Sociol Assoc) 20(4):519–522

Bourdieu P (1975) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Soc Sci Inf 14(6):19–47. doi: 10.1177/053901847501400602

Bourdieu P (1992) Les règles de l'art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire. Seuil, Paris

Bryant JM (1994) Evidence and explanation in history and sociology: critical reflections on goldthorpe’s critique of historical sociology. Br J Sociol 45(1):3–19

Bryman A (2007) The research question in social research: what is its role? Int J Soc Res Methodol 10:5–20

Bryman A (2008) Of methods and methodology. Qual Res Organ Manage Int J 3(2):159–168

Bryman A (2011) Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Liber, Malmö

Dagan H (2011) Property: values and institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Book   Google Scholar  

Davis MS (1971) That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philos Soc Sci 1(4):309–344

Davis MS (1986) That’s classic! The phenomenology and rhetoric of successful social theories. Philos Soc Sci 16(3):285–301

Djankov S, Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2003) The new comparative economics. J Comp Econ 31:595–619

Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (2008) The law and economics of self-dealing. J Financ Econ 88:430–465

Dubois A, Gadde LE (2014) “Systematic combining”–A decade later. J Bus Res 67:1277–1284

Durkheim É (1894) Les régles de la méthode sociologique. Revue philosophique

Duss V (2012) Chronik. Arbeitskreis “Augen der Rechtsgeschichte”. Fünftes Symposium zur Methode der Rechtsgeschichte. Einsiedeln 20.–22. Januar 2011. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung 129(1):986–990. doi: 10.7767/zrgga.2012.129.1.986

Ehrlich E (1912/1967) Das lebende Recht der Völker der Bukowina. Reprinted In: Rehbinder M (ed) Eugen Ehrlich, Recht und Leben, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 43–60

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32

Elharidy AM, Nicholson B, Scapens RW (2008) Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research. Qual Res Acc Manage 5(2):139–155. doi: 10.1108/11766090810888935

European Commission (2010) European textbook on ethics in research. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2777/17442

European Commission (2013) Ethics for researchers: facilitating research excellence in FP7. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2777/7491

European Science Foundation, ALLEA (2011) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg

Fallon RH Jr (1999) How to choose a constitutional theory. Calif Law Rev 87(3):535–579

Feyerabend PK (1975) Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Humanities Press, London

Fleck L (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Originally published in German as Fleck L (1935) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Schwabe, Basel

Fleischer H (2001) Grundfragen der ökonomischen Theorie im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht. Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 30(1):1–32

Fouché CB, De Vos AS (2011) Formal formulations. In: De Vos AS, Strydom H, Fouché CB, Delport CSL (eds) Research at grass roots: for the social sciences and human service professions. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria, pp 89–100

Friedman M (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M (ed) Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 3–43

Giddens A (1979) Central problems in social theory. Macmillan, London

Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Oxford, and University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles

Giddens A (1988) Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Strukturierung. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main [German translation of Giddens A (1984)]

Gilbert N (ed) (2008) Researching social life, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

Glerup C, Horst M (2014) Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. J Responsible Innov 1(1):31–50. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882077

Goldthorpe JH (1991) The uses of history in sociology: reflections on some recent tendencies. Br J Sociol 42:211–230

Graver HP (2008) Vanlig juridisk metode? Om rettsdogmatikken som juridisk sjanger. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 121(2):149–178

Guével D (2012) Droit de commerce et des affaires, 4e edn. LGDJ, Paris

Husa J (2009) Theorie der Rechtsvergleichung als Rechtsphilosophie. Rechtstheorie 40:473–492

Johansson LG (2015) Introduktion till vetenskapsteorin. Tredje upplagan, andra tryckningen. Bokförlaget Thales, Stockholm

Kaplan A (1964) The conduct of inquiry: methodology for behavioral science. Chandler Publishing Company, New York

Kasanen E, Lukka K, Siitonen A (1993) The constructive approach in management accounting research. J Manag Account Res 5:243–264

Kelsen H (1934) Reine Rechtslehre: Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik, 1. Aufl. Deuticke, Leipzig Wien. Jestaedt M (ed) (2008) Studienausgabe. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1998) Law and finance. J Polit Econ 106(6):1113–1155

Lukka K, Kasanen E (1995) The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research. Acc Audit Account J 8(5):71–90 doi: 10.1108/09513579510147733

Lukka K, Vinnari E (2014) Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Account Audit Account J 27(8):1308–1338

Lundahl U, Skärvad PH (1999) Utredningsmetodik för samhällsvetare och ekonomer. Studentlitteratur, Lund

MacIntyre A (2007) After virtue. A study in moral theory, 3rd edn. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana

Mæhle SS (2015) Rettsvitenskapelig forskningsmetodikk – i lys av grunnleggende forskningsverdier. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 128(2):125–157

Mäntysaari P (2005) Comparative corporate governance: shareholders as a rule-maker. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2010a) The law of corporate finance: general principles and EU law. Volume I: cash flow, risk, agency, information. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2010b) The law of corporate finance: general principles and EU law. Volume II: contracts in general. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2012) Organising the firm: theories of commercial law, corporate governance and corporate law. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

Mäntysaari P (2013) Was sollte man tun? Ein Plädoyer für anwenderfreundliche Rechtswissenschaft. Rechtstheorie 44(2):189–207. doi: 10.3790/rth.44.2.189

Mäntysaari P (2015) EU electricity trade law: the legal tools of electricity producers in the internal electricity market. Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16513-4

Mäntysaari P (2016) Oikeudenaloista tieteenaloihin. Lakimies 114(2):297–304

Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New York

Miles MB (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis. Adm Sci Q 24(4):590–601. doi: 10.2307/2392365

Moorhead R (2010) Lawyer specialization – managing the professional paradox. Law Policy 32(2):226–259

Myrdal J (2007) Källpluralismen och dess inkluderande metodpaket. Historisk tidskrift 127(3):495–504

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992) Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process, vol I. The National Academies Press, Washington. doi: 10.17226/1864

Olsen L (2004) Rättsvetenskapliga perspektiv. Svensk Juristtidning 89(2):105–145

Patel R, Davidson B (2012) Forskningsmetodikens grunder: Att planera, genomföra och rapportera en undersökning. Fjärde upplagan, Studentlitteratur, Lund

Peirce CS (1931–1935) The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols I–VI. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P (eds) Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E, Welch C (2010) ‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing: insights from research practice. Ind Mark Manag 39:109–117

Popper K (2005) Logik der Forschung. 11. Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Posner RA (2002) Legal scholarship today. Harv Law Rev 115(5):1314–1326

Pratt MG (2009) For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and rewriting) qualitative research. Acad Manag J 52(5):856–862

Quine WV (1975) The nature of natural knowledge. In: Guttenplan S (ed) Mind and language. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 67–81

Ross A (1958) On law and justice. Stevens & Sons, London

Ruddin LP (2006) You can generalize stupid! social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg and case study methodology. Qual Inq 12(4):797–812. doi: 10.1177/1077800406288622

Ryan B, Scapens RW, Theobald M (1992) Research method and methodology in finance and accounting. Academic Press, London

Sandberg J, Alvesson M (2011) Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? Organization 18:23–44. doi: 10.1177/1350508410372151

Sandgren C (2005) Om teoribildning och rättsvetenskap. Juridisk Tidskrift 16(2):297–333

Saurama E, Julkunen I (2012) Approaching practice research in theory and practice. Soc Work Soc Sci Rev 15(2):57–75. doi: 10.1921/095352211X636502

Scapens RW (1990) Researching management accounting practice: the role of case study methods. Br Account Rev 22(3):259–281

Strydom H (2014) An evaluation of the purposes of research in social work. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 49(2):149–164. doi: 10.15270/49-2-58

Subrt J (2012) History and sociology: what is historical sociology? In: Erasga D (ed) Sociological landscape-theories, realities and trends. Intechopen. Chapter 12, pp 403–416. doi: 10.5772/38816

Teubner G (1997) Global Bukowina: legal pluralism in the world-society. In: Teubner G (ed) (1997) Global law without a state. Aldershot, Dartmouth, pp 3–28

Torstendahl R (2005) Källkritik, metod och vetenskap. Historisk tidskrift 125(2):209–217

Tracy SJ (2010) Qualitative quality: eight “Big Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq 16(1):837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121

von Ranke L (1885) Sämtliche Werke. Bd. 33/34. Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig

Weber M (1904) Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19(1):22–87

Weber M (1922) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft – Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie. J.C.B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen

Wesel U (1974) Zur Methode der Rechtsgeschichte. Kritische Justiz 7(4):337–368

Whaples R, Morris AP, Moorhouse JC (1998) What should lawyers know about economics? J Leg Educ 48:120–124

White JB (2002) Legal knowledge. Harv Law Rev 115(5):1396–1431

Wittgenstein L (1922) Tractatus Logico-philosophicus: Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Kegan Paul, London

Yates SJ (2004) Doing social science research. SAGE Publications, London

Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

Zweigert K, Kötz H (1996) Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts, 3. neubearbeitete Auflage. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Accounting and Commercial Law, Hanken School of Economics, Vaasa, Finland

Petri Mäntysaari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Mäntysaari, P. (2017). The Research Question, Theories and Methods. In: User-friendly Legal Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53492-3_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53492-3_3

Published : 29 March 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-53491-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-53492-3

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

College of Biological Sciences

Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology

The Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology brings together a diverse group of faculty members who are deeply intrigued by fundamental biological questions. Their research transcends traditional boundaries, spanning plants, animals, and microorganisms. The department equips undergraduates with an understanding of biological principles at the molecular and cellular levels, and also makes significant contributions to graduate education across several graduate programs. To foster interdisciplinary excellence, the department maintains two state-of-the-art research technology cores: Light Imaging Facility, which specializes in live cell imaging, and the Bio Electron Microscopy Facility, which supports research across different spatial resolutions.

Undergraduate Programs

More information about CBS majors and minors

Graduate Groups

Biological Electron Microscopy Facility

BioEM provides electron microscopy imaging services encompassing a spatial resolution scale from imacromolecular assemblies, subcellular organelles to tissues.

Light Microscopy Imaging Facility

The Light Microscopy Imaging Facility specializes in live cell imaging and super-resolution methods for a wide variety of applications.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.4: Regular vs. Research Questions

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 81164

• Cheryl Lowry
• The Ohio State University via Ohio State University Libraries

Regular vs. Research Questions

Most of us look for information to answer questions every day, and we often act on the answers to those questions. Are research questions any different from most of the questions for which we seek information? Yes.

See how they’re different by looking over the examples of both kinds below and answering questions about them in the next activity.

Examples: Regular vs. Research Questions

Regular Question: What time is my movie showing at Lennox on Friday?

Research Question: How do “sleeper” films end up having outstanding attendance figures?

Regular Question: What can I do about my insomnia?

Research Question: How do flights more than 16 hours long affect the reflexes of commercial jet pilots?

Regular Question: How many children in the U.S. have allergies?

Research Question: How does his or her country of birth affect a child’s chances of developing asthma?

Regular Question: What year was metformin approved by the U.S. Food and Drug administration?

Research Question: Why are nanomedicines, such as doxorubicin, worth developing?

Regular Question: Could citizens register to vote at branches of the Columbus Public Library in 2016?

Research Question: How do public libraries in the United States support democracy?

Regular Question: What is the Whorfian Hypothesis?

Research Question: Why have linguists cared about the Whorfian hypothesis?

Regular Question: Where is the Apple, Inc. home office?

Research Question: Why are Apple’s marketing efforts so successful?

Regular Question: What is Mers?

Research Question: How could decision making about whether to declare a pandemic be improved?

Regular Question: Does MLA style recommend the use of generic male pronouns intended to refer to both males and females?

Research Question: How do age, gender, IQ, and socioeconomic status affect whether students interpret generic male pronouns as referring to both males and females?

Activity: Which Kind of Question

Open activity in a web browser.

Prestigious cancer research institute has retracted 7 studies amid controversy over errors

Seven studies from researchers at the prestigious Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have been retracted over the last two months after a scientist blogger alleged that images used in them had been manipulated or duplicated.

The retractions are the latest development in a monthslong controversy around research at the Boston-based institute, which is a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. 

The issue came to light after Sholto David, a microbiologist and volunteer science sleuth based in Wales, published a scathing post on his blog in January, alleging errors and manipulations of images across dozens of papers produced primarily by Dana-Farber researchers . The institute acknowledged errors and subsequently announced that it had requested six studies to be retracted and asked for corrections in 31 more papers. Dana-Farber also said, however, that a review process for errors had been underway before David’s post. 

Now, at least one more study has been retracted than Dana-Farber initially indicated, and David said he has discovered an additional 30 studies from authors affiliated with the institute that he believes contain errors or image manipulations and therefore deserve scrutiny.

The episode has imperiled the reputation of a major cancer research institute and raised questions about one high-profile researcher there, Kenneth Anderson, who is a senior author on six of the seven retracted studies. 

Anderson is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the director of the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana-Farber. He did not respond to multiple emails or voicemails requesting comment. 

The retractions and new allegations add to a larger, ongoing debate in science about how to protect scientific integrity and reduce the incentives that could lead to misconduct or unintentional mistakes in research. 

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has moved relatively swiftly to seek retractions and corrections. 

“Dana-Farber is deeply committed to a culture of accountability and integrity, and as an academic research and clinical care organization we also prioritize transparency,” Dr. Barrett Rollins, the institute’s integrity research officer, said in a statement. “However, we are bound by federal regulations that apply to all academic medical centers funded by the National Institutes of Health among other federal agencies. Therefore, we cannot share details of internal review processes and will not comment on personnel issues.”

The retracted studies were originally published in two journals: One in the Journal of Immunology and six in Cancer Research. Six of the seven focused on multiple myeloma, a form of cancer that develops in plasma cells. Retraction notices indicate that Anderson agreed to the retractions of the papers he authored.

Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and longtime image sleuth, reviewed several of the papers’ retraction statements and scientific images for NBC News and said the errors were serious. 

“The ones I’m looking at all have duplicated elements in the photos, where the photo itself has been manipulated,” she said, adding that these elements were “signs of misconduct.” 

Dr.  John Chute, who directs the division of hematology and cellular therapy at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and has contributed to studies about multiple myeloma, said the papers were produced by pioneers in the field, including Anderson. 

“These are people I admire and respect,” he said. “Those were all high-impact papers, meaning they’re highly read and highly cited. By definition, they have had a broad impact on the field.” 

Chute said he did not know the authors personally but had followed their work for a long time.

“Those investigators are some of the leading people in the field of myeloma research and they have paved the way in terms of understanding our biology of the disease,” he said. “The papers they publish lead to all kinds of additional work in that direction. People follow those leads and industry pays attention to that stuff and drug development follows.”

The retractions offer additional evidence for what some science sleuths have been saying for years: The more you look for errors or image manipulation, the more you might find, even at the top levels of science. 

Scientific images in papers are typically used to present evidence of an experiment’s results. Commonly, they show cells or mice; other types of images show key findings like western blots — a laboratory method that identifies proteins — or bands of separated DNA molecules in gels. 

Science sleuths sometimes examine these images for irregular patterns that could indicate errors, duplications or manipulations. Some artificial intelligence companies are training computers to spot these kinds of problems, as well. 

Duplicated images could be a sign of sloppy lab work or data practices. Manipulated images — in which a researcher has modified an image heavily with photo editing tools — could indicate that images have been exaggerated, enhanced or altered in an unethical way that could change how other scientists interpret a study’s findings or scientific meaning. 

Top scientists at big research institutions often run sprawling laboratories with lots of junior scientists. Critics of science research and publishing systems allege that a lack of opportunities for young scientists, limited oversight and pressure to publish splashy papers that can advance careers could incentivize misconduct. 

These critics, along with many science sleuths, allege that errors or sloppiness are too common , that research organizations and authors often ignore concerns when they’re identified, and that the path from complaint to correction is sluggish. 

“When you look at the amount of retractions and poor peer review in research today, the question is, what has happened to the quality standards we used to think existed in research?” said Nick Steneck, an emeritus professor at the University of Michigan and an expert on science integrity.

David told NBC News that he had shared some, but not all, of his concerns about additional image issues with Dana-Farber. He added that he had not identified any problems in four of the seven studies that have been retracted. 

“It’s good they’ve picked up stuff that wasn’t in the list,” he said. 

NBC News requested an updated tally of retractions and corrections, but Ellen Berlin, a spokeswoman for Dana-Farber, declined to provide a new list. She said that the numbers could shift and that the institute did not have control over the form, format or timing of corrections. 

“Any tally we give you today might be different tomorrow and will likely be different a week from now or a month from now,” Berlin said. “The point of sharing numbers with the public weeks ago was to make clear to the public that Dana-Farber had taken swift and decisive action with regard to the articles for which a Dana-Farber faculty member was primary author.” 

She added that Dana-Farber was encouraging journals to correct the scientific record as promptly as possible. 

Bik said it was unusual to see a highly regarded U.S. institution have multiple papers retracted. 

“I don’t think I’ve seen many of those,” she said. “In this case, there was a lot of public attention to it and it seems like they’re responding very quickly. It’s unusual, but how it should be.”

Evan Bush is a science reporter for NBC News. He can be reached at [email protected].

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

A “Growth-at-All-Costs” Mindset Can Stall Your Company

If leaders don’t consider employees in their growth strategies, then disengagement, burnout, and lack of innovation will persist.

The strength of any organization depends on its people. Research has found a strong positive relationship between employee well-being and firm performance. When people feel healthy and engaged, their work performance improves, their relationships are stronger, and they’re better motivated to impact change. This is what’s at the heart of “human sustainability”— a concept introduced in Deloitte’s “2023 Global Human Capital Trends” report. It’s about creating value in people’s lives — from their physical and mental well-being to their career skills and overall sense of purpose. It starts with individuals, but ultimately has a ripple effect to the people they encounter and the organizations they’re part of. Research shows that a focus on human sustainability drives stronger business results. All organizations need a business growth strategy where people feel they’re prioritized. Before you launch your next growth initiative, make sure you’re not sabotaging your employees, and your company in turn. This article offers five questions to ask yourself as you’re setting your own growth strategy.

Sustainable growth can be elusive. Research has shown that only about 15% of the companies in the top growth quartile in 1985 were able to sustain their top-quartile performance for at least 30 years. While factors such as operating systems, financial health, and internal processes are all critical in determining whether growth can continue, studies show that of all the resources a company has, human capital is the most important. In other words, consistent and profitable growth is never easy, but it’s nearly impossible without “the quality, talent, and mindset of its people.”

• Jenn Lim  is a global workplace expert , one of the World’s Top 50 Keynote Speakers, the bestselling author of Beyond Happiness , and CEO/Cofounder of Delivering Happiness .
• Jen Fisher  is Deloitte’s Human Sustainability leader in the United States. She’s also the bestselling author of the book,  Work Better Together , a  TEDx speaker , the  Human Sustainability Editor-At-Large for Thrive Global , and the host of the  WorkWell podcast series .

Partner Center

• Office of the Vice President for Research
• Location Location
• Contact Contact
• Offices and Divisions
• News & Publications
• Research News

Propel Research Mentorship Program open for applications

Applications for Propel close on Monday, July 1, 2024. 

Click here to apply for Propel 2024-2025. 

• Review Propel program requirements
• Review application materials

The Office of the Vice President for Research (VPR) is excited to invite early career faculty members to join our research mentorship program, Propel. The Propel Research Mentorship Program is designed to support faculty members who are new to the federal grants application process or have had success in securing relatively small grant awards, and are ready to apply for an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or a relatively large grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Through Propel’s structured workshops, mentorship and editing support, participants will spend nine months developing a polished grant proposal, and will submit the proposal to the targeted funding agency (NIH or NSF) at the end of the program, in late Spring 2025. 

Program activities for the 2024-2025 Propel class will run from August 23, 2024 through May 2, 2025, and participants will submit their proposals no later than June 2025. Prospective participants are encouraged to read more about the Propel program requirements .

The Office of the Vice President for Research will begin accepting 2024-2025 Propel applications on Tuesday, April 9. Complete application packages are due by Monday, July 1, 2024.

How to Apply for Propel

Any USC faculty member that meets the criteria below may apply. To be considered for Propel, faculty members must:

• Hold the title of assistant or associate tenure track professor (including assistant and associate research faculty).
• Be new to the federal grants application process or have received relatively small external grant awards (or subawards) in the past.
• Be employed at USC Columbia, the USC schools of medicine in Columbia or Greenville, a four-year USC comprehensive institution or a USC Palmetto College campus.
• Not have received a large federal grant (such as an NIH R01 or a medium/large NSF award of about $500,000 or more). Propel welcomes faculty members who have applied for large awards but not had them funded.

Note: Participants in a previous Propel class are not eligible to participate in Propel 2024-2025.

Applications for Propel will be administered through REDCap.

Application Materials

The applicant must provide the following materials in their REDCap application:

• Choice of focus: NIH or NSF
• Five keywords related to your research
• Current faculty rank
• Optional: list a funding solicitation (please provide the name and link, if applicable) 

Please direct questions regarding NIH focused applications to Michael Beets, Ph.D. , at [email protected] or 803-777-3003.

Questions regarding NSF focused applications can be directed to Emily Devereux, Ph.D. , at [email protected] 803-576-6787.

Propel 2024-2025 Schedule

Please refer to the Propel Research Mentorship Program page for more details on each workshop and deliverable noted below. A light breakfast and full lunch will be provided for participants at all program sessions.

9 April 2024

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.