Understanding Research (11 page)
Read Understanding Research Online
Authors: Marianne Franklin
Let’s retrace our steps in order to move those first decisions about a possible topic up a level; formulating your
research question
, or
hypothesis
. These in turn designate for many fundamental differences between not only sorts of questions, and how they are asked, but also how they will be investigated. For the sake of argument let’s see the term ‘research question’ as a general term with ‘hypothesis’ a more specialized one.
- Quantitative traditions tend towards a research question formulated as a
hypothesis
(Creswell 2009: 132
passim
; Gray 2009: 57). Getting to this stage constitutes a large part of the preparatory work, as the data-gathering methods employed and integrity of the findings pivot on the viability of the hypothesis. - Other sensibilities stress more open-ended formulations where the research question could be couched around a ‘how’ as much as a ‘why’ or ‘who’ sort of interrogation. For these traditions, the eventual outcome as a written piece of work all hinges on research questions that not only generate but also evolve during the course of the investigation.
Let’s look more closely at the implications of these differing expectations:
First, the terms
research topic
and
research question
can be used interchangeably in everyday discussions, and sometimes departmental guidelines. To complicate matters, references to a third term, the
research problematic
(or
problématique
) blur this distinction further. Without agonizing too long over these nuances there are distinctions at work, which point to some entrenched debates about the ends, and means of academic research.
What are the differences in practical terms?
- Recall, that the research topic is the general area of research irrespective of whether you end up engaging in strictly qualitative or quantitative work.
- In most cases, research questions ask how two or more ideas or concepts might be related.
- For quantitative research designs, however, a hypothesis asks whether and how two phenomena or concepts might be related by presenting these two phenomena or concepts as two
variables
; in the order of appearance of the directional relationship you expect to them to occur and which you will therefore proceed to
test
. In this respect these hypotheses have to be
testable
. - Other approaches may talk about a hypothesis in other ways; as statements or premises of an argument that do not presuppose the above protocol and accompanying expectations.
- In other words, using the term ‘hypothesis’ does not automatically lend your research question legitimacy in quantitative, hypothesis-testing modes of work.
How then do these distinctions unfold when designing a project respectively?
Chapter 2
covered ways to come up with a research topic; noting that a research topic is not the same as a research question. As Gray points out; ‘topics are broad but research questions [are] definitive and narrow’ (Gray 2009: 55).
5
The challenge is how to move from the broad brush-stroke – the general – to a finer one – the specific. Unless either or both come ready-made, as a specifically funded research topic/question or as a sub-set of a larger project, or senior researcher’s research speciality (prevalent in parts of Europe like Germany), the sky is the limit for even undergraduate research dissertations.
Whilst conveying the topic you’re interested in is, for all but the most undecided, not too difficult, constructing a research question that encapsulates why you are researching this topic, on what terms and in what ways, is less cut-and-dried. Here are some ways to proceed with the topic/s you have at hand:
- One way to approach it is to consider your
research question
as consisting of a main question, which can be unpacked into two to three sub-questions. - In contrast to the declamatory form of a research topic (‘my research is about . . .’), a research question needs to strike a balance between the abstract and the concrete. How far you come down on either side depends on how deeply rooted you are in those research traditions that privilege
inductive
modes of reasoning (see
Chapter 7
) and so are not so strict about how ‘concise and unambiguous’ (Gray 2009: 55–7) your formulation is. - It may well be that ambiguity is integral to the question itself, the object of analysis. There are those who argue that the research as a whole and the research question are both parts of a larger puzzle, not reducible to sound-bites (see Creswell 2009: 64).
- However, this need not mean that you are not required to articulate a coherent question, one that encapsulates the intellectual puzzle you are engaging in, if not express a sense of purpose.
So even for projects nominally called qualitative, conciseness and non-ambiguity are not a bad thing. In this respect the research question and ‘purpose statement’
6
are both characterized by the use of open-ended rather than closed (yes or no) questions, action words that stress discovery and process, question forms that prefer the ‘how’ and ‘what’ over the ‘why’ and other sorts of open-ended, or ‘nondirectional language’ (Creswell 2009: 125).
Let’s turn now to research question formulation in those traditions where hypotheses are specific sorts of research questions. In light of the above distinction the difference pans out as follows:
- For instance, a research question about immigration policy might be, ‘How has the immigration policy of western European countries influenced the diversity of the population?’
- A hypothesis, on the other hand, does something else. It is a statement asserting that a specific variation in one concept results in specific variation in another concept.
- Usually a hypothesis is derived from the research literature currently available in a particular area, which implies that it may also be derived from qualitative work as well; sometimes referred to as ‘soaking and poking’.
7 - The working premise that hypotheses can be empirically verified; a premise that is itself a topic of key debates amongst philosophers and historians of science, as we will see below.
When hypotheses are used it is typical to speak of
variables
as well.
- Variables are qualities or characteristics that take on different values; thus they vary. Age is a variable – though some people may share a birthday within the population, age varies from one person to the next.
- A hypothesis will state a relationship between an
independent variable
and a
dependent variable
.- The value of quantity of the dependent variable will depend on the value of the independent variable. So, for example, the temperature outside is a dependent variable because it depends on how much the sun has been shining (independent variable).
- We can speak of these as X (independent variable) and Y (dependent variable).
8
- The value of quantity of the dependent variable will depend on the value of the independent variable. So, for example, the temperature outside is a dependent variable because it depends on how much the sun has been shining (independent variable).
Using the earlier example, we could phrase as a hypothesis as something like, ‘In countries with stricter immigration policy, diversity will be lower.’ That said, there are several different types of hypotheses:
- Hypotheses might state a causal relationship or simply a correlation between two variables. If the relationship hypothesized is
correlational
then we may drop the terms independent and dependent variable and only use the term variable. - The hypothesis might state a conditional relationship where the existence of a relationship between two variables depends on the presence of a third variable.
- In addition, in research based on statistical analysis we may speak of a null hypothesis; where there is no relationship between the two variables.
- The direction of the relationship can be negative or positive – a negative relationship is when an increase in one variable is related to a decrease in the value of the other variable/s.
All in all, a hypothesis needs to provide a clear idea about the
unit of analysis
and the
theoretical population
. The unit of analysis is the types or levels of actor, institution or group to which the hypothesis is thought to apply. This might be individual citizens or interest groups, sub-groups that are drawn from larger, theoretical populations to which the hypothesis can be applied or generalized; survey work for instance (see
Chapter 6
).
In terms of formulating a useful hypothesis certain characteristics need to be evident.
- It should be stated affirmatively, not in the form of a question; that is a research question as noted above.
- In order to be verified (or falsified) it must be
testable
with empirically
quantifiable
evidence (see
Chapter 1
). - A hypothesis needs to state how concepts (variables) are related in such a way that the direction of their relationship is clear; e.g. as the independent variable increases in value, does the dependent variable decrease (a negative relationship) or increase (a positive relationship)?
The next two principles are also common to various shades of qualitative research question formulation:
- 4 As with any research question, the hypothesis should make sense in terms of how it relates to the relevant existing body of knowledge; the theoretical and research literature in so many words.
- 5 Though it may seem this goes without saying, a hypothesis should be plausible and make sense to others, and yourself at a later date.
BOX 3.3 EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES
‘The greater the inequality in land-ownership in countries, the greater the civil strife.’
‘Local television news stories are more likely to be about crime than network news stories.’
‘The proportion of the vote a party receives determines the proportion of seats it receives in the legislature.’
‘The greater the number of highway patrol officers per capita in a state, the fewer the number of highway fatalities.’
‘Interest groups that spend the most on professional lobbyists receive the greatest financial rewards from government programmes.’
To illustrate, and in order to keep these functional distinctions between hypotheses and research questions, we can turn to a well-known example in American social science literature:
As researchers started to note a decline in
social capital
they also asked what was ‘causing’ social capital to decline? One theory, advanced by Robert Putnam (2000) in
Bowling Alone
, is that the decline in the status of the family contributes to the decline in social capital. In this case what are the independent and dependent variables? Social capital is dependent on the status of the family in society, according to one explanation of Putnam. Therefore, social capital is the dependent variable and the status of the family is the independent variable; as the family declines social capital declines – a positive relationship (think about why this is understood as a positive and not a negative relationship in normative terms).
Whatever side of the divide you are currently standing, moving from research topic to research question is often where many students, and professional researchers, get stuck. Assuming that this moment is not symptomatic of a lack of reading, thinking, or consultation, a sure sign of being stuck here is when you, or others, are heard editorializing when asked about your research question, for example: ‘Well, I’m not sure yet, ‘coz I’m still working on it, and my supervisor and I are meeting this week to discuss it but it sort of, at the moment, about . . .’ So what to do if you are not able to articulate your research
question
‘concisely and unambiguously’?
**TIP: Instead of waiting for inspiration to come – fall from the tree above you as it were, treat your current formulation as work-in-progress.
- As you gain more knowledge and insights (usually by reading rather than agonizing) your question will also ripen, your ability to formulate it also.
- In the meantime note down new ways of phrasing it, particularly after reading more literature, doing some of the data-gathering, or (as is often the case) just before going to sleep, in the shower, or on the way to work – the ‘put it on the back-boiler’ approach based on psychological theories about how our memories often work subconsciously.
The main thing here, whether or not you are working up a hypothesis or articulating a more open-ended sort of research question, is that the distinction between general topic and specific research question and how the latter breaks down into sub-questions needs to make sense to you and others – supervisor, classmates, engaged lay persons.
Still stuck? Then try the following:
- Having several versions of the topic and research question helps you towards finding a formulation that you, the researcher, can pin down; make it your own as your research plans take shape.
- Sometimes it is more a matter of syntax; phrasing rather than a substantive issue. The lack of a clearly identifiable research question is a common criticism by even the most sympathetic of readers. Try inverting those long statements, lists of propositions or possibilities into question-forms if not declarations.
- Another way is to try rephrasing your initial idea in the conditional form: ‘what if ’, ‘if ’, ‘supposing that . . . then what would . . .’. This results in a research question, if not hypothesis, that is recognizable for various audiences.
Rephrasing, or changing the word order is often linked to how the core question develops as you gain more knowledge of the terrain, through a better grasp of the literature/s pertinent to your inquiry but also as your own research progresses, in both theoretical (ideas, concepts, analytical frameworks) and in empirical terms (what you find out).
That said, at some point all projects need to be able to articulate their core question, or set of questions motivating it. Not being able say what sort of inquiry
is ‘driving’ or underlying the project in so many words does not augur well when you are faced with the next set of decisions: gathering and analysing your material (see
Part 2
). For those stuck on the horns of this particular dilemma, one way out of this cul-de-sac for qualitative research sensibilities is to try stating your research question in its most boldest, and baldest formulation; as a yes/no or a declamatory, straightforward statement or in hypothesis form. Conversely, you could look at reformulating your provisional hypothesis – to be testable in the strictest quantifiable sense – as a more open-ended inquiry.
The idea behind this sort of role-reversal is that when stuck, taking a counterintuitive approach to the presiding research culture within which you are working can create openings; lateral thinking is not the preserve of self-help books. As you get on with things, take heart; formulating your research question in the case of qualitative projects, or a hypothesis in the case of quantitative work, is a work-in-progress itself.