1. Research Questions, Scope, and Feasibility

The decision

A research project begins when a topic becomes an answerable question.

Learning outcomes

You will be able to:

• separate topic, problem, question, and contribution;
• define the population, phenomenon, outcome, context, and time boundary;
• match question wording to the claim you may later make;
• reject a question that the available time, data, or ethics cannot support.

1. Find the puzzle

A project needs a reason to exist. Use one of five common puzzles:

“Few studies exist” is not yet a puzzle. Explain what cannot be understood or decided because evidence is missing.

2. Build the question

Use only the fields your question needs:

In [population/context], how/why/to what extent does [phenomenon or intervention]
relate to [outcome], compared with [alternative], during [time]?

For the running case:

Population: first-year undergraduates
Context: one six-week research-methods module
Intervention: rubric-guided peer comments on a draft abstract
Comparison: usual unstructured comments
Outcome: change in blind rubric score from draft to final abstract

Not every field belongs in the title. Every field must, however, be decided somewhere in the protocol.

3. Choose the question type

Question verbs set the ceiling on later claims.

4. Set the boundary

Write a scope box before searching.

A boundary is not an apology. It tells the reader what population of claims the study belongs to.

5. Pass the feasibility gate

Answer each question with evidence, not optimism.

1. Access — Can you obtain the sources, participants, texts, or data?
2. Time — Can collection, analysis, and revision finish before submission?
3. Skill — Can you execute the proposed method accurately?
4. Variation — Is there enough variation or comparison to answer the question?
5. Ethics — Can consent, privacy, risk, and power relations be handled?
6. Payoff — Would any plausible answer matter?

Feasibility example

Initial plan: Randomise 400 students across four universities and track writing for a year.

Available: one class of 48 students, six weeks, two teaching groups.

Redesigned question:

How does abstract quality change after structured peer feedback in one first-year methods class, and which feedback features appear in the revisions?

The redesign weakens causal ambition but creates an honest, finishable study.

6. Plan backwards from the claim

Complete this chain:

Desired claim
→ observation needed
→ comparison needed
→ data source
→ method
→ practical and ethical constraint

Example:

Claim: structured feedback improved abstracts
→ need change attributable to feedback
→ compare structured and usual-feedback groups over time
→ blind ratings of draft and final versions
→ group-by-time analysis plus feedback coding
→ assignment process and assessor blinding must be credible

If one arrow cannot be completed, narrow the claim or redesign the study.

Practice: the one-page question defence

Produce six lines:

Topic:
Puzzle:
Question:
Scope:
Evidence needed:
Strongest claim the design could support:

Then write one counterexample: What result would make your preferred answer wrong? If no result could, the question is advocacy rather than inquiry.

Quality check

• the outcome or object of interpretation is named;
• the population or context is bounded;
• key terms could be observed or interpreted consistently;
• the verb matches a possible design;
• a plausible opposing answer exists;
• the project is feasible and ethically reviewable.

Next: search, evaluate, and read the evidence.