Chapter 3

Identifying the Inquiry and Stating the Problem

Learning Objectives
The learners shall be able to:
 Design a research project related to daily life
 Write a research title
 Describe the justifications/reasons for conducting the research
 State research questions
 Indicate scope and delimitation of research
 Cite benefits and beneficiaries of research
 Present written statement of the problem

“The hard part is putting one word after another.”

-Jo Linsdell
Qualitative research inquires about people’s everyday lives and experiences which makes
it exciting. Exploiting the “significant truths” in people’s lives is the privilege of being a
qualitative researcher. It is an amazing thing to explore into people’s lives and ask questions
right.
DESIGNING A RESEARCH STUDY
A research design is the framework that has been created to seek answers to research
questions. It is a research plan that includes methods of data collection and analysis.
Traditionally it has been used by academic disciplines, like sociology, psychology and
anthropology. Today it is being increasingly used in applied professions such as nursing,
education and public health.
Qualitative research is often regarded as a preliminary to quantitative research. Often it is
used to formulate a realistic and testable hypothesis. With standard quantitative research
methods, this hypothesis can be then be comprehensively tested and mathematically analysed.
For these reasons, there qualitative methods are often closely associated with interviews,
survey design techniques and individual case studies. This is as a way to reinforce and evaluate
findings over a broader scale.
Qualitative methods are probably the oldest of all scientific technique. Ancient Greek
philosophers qualitatively normally observe the world around them. After which they try to come
up with answer which explained what they saw.
Encompassing a variety of accepted methods and structures, the design of qualitative
research is probably the most flexible of the various experimental techniques. It starts from an
individual case study to an extensive interview. This type of study still needs to be carefully
constructed and designed, but there is no standardize structure.
Case studies, interviews and survey design are the most commonly used methods.
The researcher frames, the study within the assumptions and characteristics of the
qualitative approach, including an evolving design, the presentation of multiple realities, the
researcher as an instrument of data collection and a focus on the participants’ views. This guides
the researcher toward the identification of an appropriate tradition of inquiry and any attendant
ethical issues.
The design stage constitutes the step where the methodological procedure is planned and
prepared. Following are the steps in research design:

1. The Problem – The first step involves the proper selection and then carefully defining
the problem. By this researcher will be enable to know about what he has to search, but it
should be kept in mind that the problems based on the desires.
2. Objective of the study – the objective should be very clear in the mind of the researcher
as this will lead to the clarity of the design and proper response from the respondent.
3. Natured of the study - The research design should be very much in relation with the
nature of the study, which is to be carried out.
4. Data sources – The various sources of the data or the information should be very clearly
stated by the researcher.
5. Technique of data collection –For the collection of the required information, it
sometimes becomes very necessary to use some especial techniques.
6. Social cultural context- Research design based on the social cultural concept is prepared
in order to avoid the various study variations.
7. Geographical limit –this step becomes a necessity at this point of time as with the help
of this step, research linked do the hypothesis applies only to certain number of social
groups.
8. Basis of selection –selecting a proper sample acts a very important and critical step and
this is done with the help of some mechanics like drawing a random stratified, deliberate,
double cluster or quota sample etc.

The research study should begin with a single, well-defined focus or issue that the
researcher wants to understand with an overall strategy and rationale. The development of the
statement of the problem should include examining the significance of the study. A literature
review is used to develop interview questions and concepts, compare the construct in the
literature with those from emerging data, as well as to compare the final results with existing
constructs. This facilitates refocusing significance and limitations of the study.

The researcher design includes a description of the specific setting, population or

phenomenon and a detail plan of tasks, schedules, and deadlines. The research study can be
designed as emergent to respond to patterns and data as they occur, but it is critical to have plans
and procedures in place. Everything from the gathering and recording of field notes, a plan for
data management, data coding and retrieval systems, reflexive logs or journals, to a system of
ongoing analysis needs to be thought through and clearly articulated

Computer software is now available for the process of data management, making
connections, and interpreting data. There are several varieties of programs with different
capabilities. These include words processors (Microsoft Word, WordPerfect), database managers
(Access, FilemakerPro, Quattro), and text analysis and theory-building programs (QUALPRO,
NUD*IST, AQUAD) as well as a new generation of text analyzers with visual simulators.
Software is very helpful and powerful with some programs display information in graphical
hierarchies, as narrative, as selected word and meaning groups, and even highlights possible
patterns. Underlying assumptions shape each program, however, so it is important to be
knowledgeable about the research problem and intentions in order to assure a useful software
match.

THE RESEARCH TITLE

The title of a research paper should outline the purpose of the research, the methods used
and the overall tone of the paper. The title is important because it is the first thing that is read. It
is important that the title is focused, but not too general or too detailed.

Writing a research paper title may seem a simple task, but it requires some serious
thought. Readers come across research paper titles in searches through databases and reference
sections of research papers. They deduce what a paper is about and its relevance to them based
on the title. Considering this, it is clear that the title of a research paper is the most important
determinant of how many people will read it. A good research paper title:

1. Condenses the paper’s content in a few words

2. Captures the reader’s attention
3. Differentiates the paper from other papers of the same subject area

So here are three basic reminders to keep in mind while writing a research title:

1. Keep it simple, brief and attractive – The primary function of a title is to provide a
precise summary of the paper’s d content. So keep the title brief and clear. Use active
verbs instead of complex noun-based phrases, and avoid unnecessary details. Moreover, a
good title for a research paper is typically around 10 to 12 words long. A lengthy title
may seem unfocused and take the readers’ attention away from an important point.

Avoid: Drug XYZ has an effect of muscular contraction for an hour in snails of Achatina
fulcia species
Better: Drug XYZ induces muscular contraction in Achatina fulcia snails

2. Use appropriate descriptive words – A good research paper title should contain key
words used in the manuscript and should define the nature of the study. Think about
terms people would use to search for the study and include them in the title:

Avoid: Effects of drug A on schizophrenia patients: study of a multicentre mixed group

Better: Psychosocial effects of drug A on schizophrenia patients: a multicentre
randomized controlled trial.

3. Avoid abbreviations and jargon – known abbreviations such as AIDS, NATO, and so on
can be used in the title. However, other lesser – known or specific abbreviations and
jargon that would not be immediately familiar to the readers should be left out.

Avoidd: MMP expression profiles cannot distinguish between normal and early
osteoarthritic synovial fluid
 Better: Matrix metalloproteinase protein expression profiles cannot distinguish between
normal and early osteoarthritic synovial fluid

It is a good idea to create a working title first. This title helps focus the research and
writing but can be changed if needed. The final title should be a phrase or a question that
indicates the subject and scope of the research while generating the reader’s interest and
enthusiasm for the topic.

Subtitles are quite common in qualitative research papers. Examples of why a subtitle
may be included:

1. Explains or provides additional context

Example: “Linguistic Ethnography and the Study of Welfare Institutions as a Flow of

Social Practices: The Case of Residential Child Care Institutions as Paradoxical
Institutions.” (Source: Palomares, Manuel and David Poveda. Text &Talk: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse and Communication Studies 30
(January 2010): 193-212)

2. Adds substance to a literary, provocative, or imaginative title or quote

Example: “Listen to What I say, Not How I Vote”: Congressional Support for the
President in Washington and at Home.” (Source: Grose, Christian R. and Keesha M.
Middlemass. Social Science Quarterly 91 (March 2010): 143-167)

3. Qualifies the geographic scope of the research

Example: “The Geopolitics of the Eastern Border of the European Union: The Case
of Romania-Moldova-Ukraine.” (Source: Marcu, Silvia. Geopolitics 14 (August
2009): 409-432)

4. Qualifies the temporal scope of the research

Example: “A Comparison of the Progressive Era and the Depression Years: Societal
Influences on Predictions of the Future of the Library, 1895-1940,” (Source:
Grossman, Hal B. Libraries & the Cultural Record 46 (2011): 102-128)

5. Focuses on investigating the ideas, theories, or work of a particular individual

Example: “A deliberative Conception of Politics: How Francesco Saverio Merlino

Related Anarchy and Democracy.” (Source: La Torre, Massimo. Sociologia del
diritto 28 (January 2001): 75-98)

6. Identifies the methodology used

 Example: “Student Activism of the 1960s Revisited: A Multivariate Analysis
Research Note.” (Source: Aron, William S. Social Forces 52 (March 1974): 408-414)

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH

The need to justify virtually everything that that a researcher does makes research differs
from other forms of inquiry. Research critics can challenge the validity or relevance of the
findings if they believe there was something non-typical about the people selected for study,
something biased in the way people are selected for study, something unfair about the group
compared, something wrong with the way the researcher phrased questions, and so forth. Every
aspect of research design has an influence on what will be learned from the study. Here are the
reasons in justifying the conduct of the research study:

1. Places the portion of the discussion in the academic context by showing the there are
gaps in knowledge in the field that merit a closer investigation.
2. Demonstrates that the work will fill this gap by adding knowledge in and understanding
of the field.
3. Demonstrates the work hasn’t been previously done, ensuring the intellectual
contribution is indeed original.
4. Demonstrates a critical approach to scholarship. Shows that the researcher has analysed
and critiqued the theories or methodologies in the field and that he knows the main
arguments related to his topic.
5. Consider how the available research and existing scholarship support the research. How
does It contradict the research? How will the research resolve the difference?

Therefore, the researcher needs to have rationale of every aspect of his study. To see how this
rationale makes a difference, imagine that there are two different studies being read with
similar designs and research methods, but with different rationales? Which would be more
persuasive to find out?

Table 1: Comparison between Justification of Two Studies

Rationale for: Study A Study B

Research Question I was curious about it I noticed a discrepancy in the
research and wanted to test it
Sample I happened to know these These teachers represented
teachers the population other
researchers have been
studying
Comparison I didn’t bother to compare I compared them with
them with anyone else another group who were
because I knew they were similar to them in all
honest people respects except their
knowledge about this one
issue of interest to me
Data collection It was easiest for me to do, The data I collected were
 didn’t have time for anything directly relevant to the
more discrepancy I wanted to learn
about
interpretation The patterns I see make The patterns I see are
sense and fit with my own consistent with one version
personal experience of this theory but not with the
other. Therefore they raise
questions about the second
version of this theory.

The point of this little contrast is to show how others will read the study. They will be
looking to see how serious the researcher is about really examining this issue closely, and
really trying to learn something.
Sample 1: Justification of Study

Although there is an abundance of literature on suicide and despite the relevance

of suicide to psychiatric/mental health nurses the authors assert that there is paucity of
research in this specific area. In other words, it needs to be explored whether nurses
provide meaningful caring response to suicidal people and if so how.

Meaningful care needs to be defined by the suicidal people themselves. As

participants, people were chosen who made serious attempt on their lives or felt they were
on the cusp of so doing and had received crisis care from the psychiatric service. In semi-
structured interviews participants talk about the caring experiences that were helpful to
them. Their perspective including the interaction in which they felt listened to and
understood is described.

From the analysis of the data about meaningful caring intentions, the researchers
deduce that the participants go through a process that leads them from the alienation from
the world to the new connection with the world to the new connection with the world.
Nurses help them go through these stages. They do so through reflecting an image of
humanity via “guiding the individual back to humanity” to “learning to live”. This
theoretical model demonstrates that suicidal people occupy themselves with getting a
grasp of life again and explains what is considered meaningful care in different stages.

The practice of providing care for suicidal client clearly involves at least two
people and also occurs over a period of time. A change is observed in the basic psycho-
social problems that suicidal clients go through. The situation of their interaction partners,
the nurses, is subject to change as well. Caring as such is a dynamic social phenomenon
and qualitative methods fit this structure.
 From the findings practical implications can be deduced. Based on the findings, a
theory of meaningful caring practice of suicidal people is developed. Each of the three stages
indicated in the theory is described by the way of particular meaningful performance of the
nurses. Distinct practice implications arise from this, such as the competence of nurses to be
comfortable with co-presencing, that is, to be able to hold back from being too instrumental,
and the need to be comfortable with death and talking about suicide.

The sensitive nature of the subject makes the choice of a qualitative methodology
perfectly understandable. It deals with existential issues and topics such as mortality, death
and suicide, the use of mental health services, insecurity and defendable on others. Suicide
itself is emotionally draining and subject to stigma as well. A face-to-face conversation
between a client and a researcher seems to suit this situation best.

Source: http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-
binaries/28285_02_boeije_Ch_02.pdf

THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research question is the central question which the researcher wants to answer by
doing the research study. The research problem should be sufficiently focused and defined to
formulate the clear research questions. Qualitative inquiry allows one to answer questions about
the nature of social phenomena under study rather the prevalence of the phenomena. This means
that all aspects of a phenomenon will be dissected and described and possibility an attempt will
be made to understand how the phenomenon is built-up, what the relationships are between the
different parts and what influence and absence or presence of certain parts.

The research question is the one of the most important pieces of the research design.
Fundamentally, a research question defines what the researcher wants to learn or understands.
Research questions serve several purposes, namely:

1. They help to focus the study because one simply cannot study everything at once
2. They offer some guidance on how to conduct the study since different questions
required different methods of inquiry
3. They communicate to others the goal to the research

Questions both shape research design, and are in turn shape by other aspect of the research,
including the researcher’s interest and worldview, the existing literature, and the data emerging
from the project. Through some sort of question is needed to begin research, this question is
often changed and refined during the research process. A single study may have multiple
research questions, through encourages researchers to try to define one overarching question,
which can then have a number of sub-questions.
 A research question requires balancing between breadth and specificity. A question can
be so broad that it does not offer much direction in terms of what to study how. At the same time
a research question can be so specific that the researcher risk “tunnel vision,” leading him to
miss important data or unexpected phenomena. In a similar vein, young researchers must live in
the tension between a burning question and a researchable question. A burning question is what
researcher really wants to know, could be quite broad, and might carry be the researcher across
multiple research studies. A researchable question is the one that can be directly investigated
using a research tools and hand. Also, research may start with a broad, burning question, but
become more targeted or site-specific as data collected and analysed.

Qualitative research questions tend to fall into three categories

1. Question about meaning, or how the people make sense of the world this leads to
exploratory questions, which investigate a phenomenon that is little understood
2. Question that illuminate context-this leads to explanatory