Finding a research question

In the last few months I have been involved in multiple research communities. I have noticed that many researchers ask about a good research question and/or title for their studies. Most of the time these questions remain unanswered and they do not find the help they are hoping for. This is not surprising as only by extensive reading in the field one can decide what is worth researching. Finalising a research question is not a straight forward step and a researcher needs to take a sufficient time to narrow it. According to Bryman (2008) a researcher should have very clear research question as it influences many aspects of the research including; literature search, type of data, analysis approach and writing up.

During my PhD, I have changed my research plan and objectives several times before settling on what I wanted to do. In my experience focusing the research question depends on two things which are; reading previous literature and adopting a research paradigm.

When writing a research proposal a researcher is expected to have an idea about the area of the study and how they are going to approach it. At that stage a researcher can describe the area of interest identify a research problem and bring evidence of why researching that area is important.  However, when writing a thesis, a researcher is required to show a more focused research problem presented as clear aim and objectives or research questions and to provide a strong justification of choosing that area.

An extensive reading of previous studies and looking at what has been written around the topic is the way to identify the gap in the knowledge, the originality of the research and it may draw the researcher attention to some aspects that are more important to what he/she initially planned to research.

As previous literature is key to identify an area to research, it is not enough on its own and one needs to adopt a specific research paradigm to be able to formulate the appropriate research question. Researchers who adopt a positivist paradigm and believe in ultimate truth will be looking for prediction or control and as a result their research questions will include terms like; what, cause, relationship, and may often include a hypothesis. On the other hand researchers who adopt a  constructivist/interpretivist view and believe in multiple realities will be looking for interpretations, understandings and exploring views and their research questions will include terms such as why, how, perceptions and views.

In my PhD research I explored patient educator interns' experience of learning during internship. My initial interest in the topic stemmed from my previous experience as a patient educator. By reading about the topic I decided to focus on the period of internship which represents the transition to work place. Deciding on what to study specifically was greatly influenced by choosing a constructivist paradigm. This choice led to study the participants' experience by exploring their views. I therefore excluded many research ideas which I had considered at early stages but did not fit with the constructivist paradigm, such as exploring the effectiveness of the internship training programme.

It may be tempting for researchers to be advised exactly on what to do so they can start their research. However narrowing the research question is the responsibility of the researcher as it is not merely choosing a topic but it includes a deep understanding of previous literature and awareness of personal perspectives.

Further reading 

BRYMAN, A. 2008. Planning a research project and formulating research questions In: Social research methods. 3rd ed. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SILVERMAN, D. 2010. Selecting a topic In: Doing qualitative research : a practical handbook. 3rd ed. ed. London: SAGE.

How my PhD thesis made an original contribution to knowledge

To write a thesis which is worth a PhD, it must have an original contribution to knowledge.

From the moment a research proposal is designed, PhD students are asked to show the originality of the research and present what their studies will add to existing knowledge. However, it is not always easy to understand what an original contribution means and the term seems to have many interpretations.

Authors have discussed many different ways in which an original contribution can be achieved. In this post, I will focus on three types, which are; methodological, contextual and conceptual/theoretical contribution.

A methodological contribution is where a researcher uses a new method which has not been used before, uses methods which have been used before in a new way, combines more than one method or uses a method which has been suggested but not applied before.

Making a contextual contribution and exploring unexplored contexts is a very common way to approach originality among PhD students. When considering the originality of a context, it is important to think of the context as an example and to consider how it would interest a wider community. That is to say that a contribution to the policy and practice of a specific context is not enough, and it should also have value to wider audience. Therefore, if you start your studies focusing on a specific context, it is important to identify what is special about it, what makes it different from studies that have been done on other places and how your findings would add to that.

A conceptual contribution is achieved when the findings of the research provide a new concept or theory. Not every researcher can predict whether or not the research will have this kind of contribution and it can take the researcher a while to become familiar with their own data and the surrounding literature before finding out the contribution they make. Grounded theorists however start their research with a plan to develop a theory, and therefore are able to include this from the early stages of the research. However, even if you did not plan\expect to come up with something new, that does not mean that you won't, and the more understanding you develop along the way, the more likely this becomes.

In my experience, identifying the contribution of my research was a long process which started with writing the proposal and ended with writing the discussion. My PhD research looked at the experience of transition from university to the workplace. I was interested in particular in the experience of patient educators. In the early stages of my research, I stated that the contribution of my research was in studying a group of professionals who had not been studied before. In reading about transition for health professionals, I noticed that most studies were focused on doctors and nurses and I only found a few studies focused on other health professionals. I therefore found this a could give my work a stronger claim to originality, and I wrote about the limited literature in different health professions. Through the further reading I did about patient educators and other health professionals, I was finally able to identify what was so special about my study. Patient education was a newly emerging profession and this would make this group’s experience different to what had been published before on well-established ones.

This was a good statement of contribution and I was able to highlight in my findings how being from a new profession could magnify the difficulties of transition. These findings showed that although my research was about patient educators, the findings could also be of value to any new profession.

While this would have been a reasonable contribution, getting immersed in the data and reading more in the field helped me to identify further issues in my data and develop a new concept that counted as a theoretical contribution.

In my PhD study, methodological contribution was not an aim which I considered at the beginning of my studies. The period of the PhD was a time to learn methodology and develop as a researcher, and as a result I did not think that I could add anything to the methods. During the research, I tried several analytical approaches, and when I finally decided to use narrative analysis, I developed a tool which suited the purpose of my analysis. Using this tool was considered a strength in my study and I have recommended it for future researchers.

As much as it is important to make an original contribution in your research, it is important not to rush it. Identifying the research contribution is a long process which takes a lot of reading and deep understanding of the data. It is important to think about it from the moment you decide to start a PhD, but it is also important to keep improving it all along the process. Your research contribution must be clear and written under a separate heading. Finally, before claiming that your thesis has made an original contribution, make sure that you have done a good search of the literature as the last thing you want your examiners to say is that your claims are false and what you say is original has actually been done/said before.

For Further Reading 

Clarke, G. and Lunt, I., 2014. The concept of ‘originality’in the Ph. D.: how is it interpreted by examiners?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), pp.803-820.

Gill, P. and Dolan, G., 2015. Originality and the PhD: what is it and how can it be demonstrated?. Nurse researcher, 22(6), pp.11-15.

MURRAY, R. 2011. How to write a thesis, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

PHILLIPS, E. & PUGH, D. S. 2000. How to get a PhD : a handbook for students and their supervisors, Buckingham, Open University Press.

https://supervisorsfriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/how-can-you-tell-when-there-has-been-a-contribution-to-knowledge-in-a-doctoral-research-study/