What Is The Question?
No matter how good research is, if the issue that you are trying to address is not clearly stated, it is unlikely that a research project will provide the information required. At the initial stages of a research project, it is therefore important to spend time defining what exactly it is that you want to find out.
A technique that is very useful when designing a research project is to try to summarise the objectives into a single-sentence question. Why a single-sentence question? Because it forces you to consider what is the primary purpose of the research, and therefore, what should be driving the methodology. It should encapsulate what you want to find out and, if done well, will provide illumination throughout the research process, from the initial design to assessing the final report.
Although coming up with a single sentence question may appear straightforward, in practice it is hard to do well. Distilling numerous objectives, taking into account the policy context, how the research will be used, and possibly competing demands from different stakeholders, is not easy. But it’s worth it. Both the process (thinking through what the question should be) and the result (having that single sentence question) offer various benefits.
It is easiest to demonstrate the process with two relatively simple examples. First, consider the following from a background section of a research brief: “Proposals for a large wind farm development on Harris have been met with significant opposition and support both from environmental campaign groups and local residents. Research is required that will accurately assess the level of support for the wind farm development among local residents and provide information on the reasons for people’s support or opposition to the scheme in order to help assess whether the proposals should be accepted.”
What is the question? The summary above gives two objectives - accurately assessing levels of support, and exploring the reasons for support or opposition. So, which of these is the primary objective? To answer this, ask yourself why the research is being commissioned. In this instance, to help assess whether the wind farm proposal should be accepted. Levels of support/opposition will hold greater sway than reasons for support/opposition. And, just as importantly, it is impossible to capture information on why people support or oppose the proposals without first knowing whether they do support the proposals or not. Therefore, it is clear that the primary focus should be on obtaining an ‘accurate’ assessment of levels of support.
Now let’s translate this into a question. So how about, “How many local residents support or oppose the wind farm proposals in Harris?” At first glance, this seems to be a fine summary. However, on closer inspection, it is too vague. What is a local resident – someone who resides anywhere in Harris or someone who is lives within a particular distance from the wind farm? Are we interested in the views of all residents or of particular people only? Is the proposal for a wind farm at one location or several locations in Harris? A bit more thinking and consideration of the full brief and we come up with the less ambiguous, “How many adults who live within 30 miles of the edge of the proposed wind farm support or oppose its development?”
The question now encapsulates what the primary purpose of the research is, clearly communicating what you want to find out and what information you need to collect. It’s a short step from here to a particular methodological design. The “how many…..” start to the question implies a robust quantitative approach. The question defines the target group – “adults living within 30 miles of the edge of the proposed development” and provides a steer as to the key data needed – support or opposition to the proposals. In the event, we suggested a telephone survey (the most cost-effective way of getting robust data in such a rural area for the budget available) and with a sampling approach based on how far respondents lived from the proposed site (within 10 miles, 10-20 miles, 20-30 miles).
But what about the secondary objective, to examine reasons for support or opposition? Well, in this instance, the methodology for the main exercise also lends itself to the secondary objective: having asked people if they support or oppose the development, you can simply follow this up by asking why.
Lets look at one other relatively straightforward example. Consider this extract from a recent research specification, listing three objectives, “Estimate the number of homeowners in Scotland who would be unable to access commercial lending to fund repairs over £3,000. Estimate how many of these people would be eligible for a Home Appreciation Loan (HAL) product. Explore the attitudes of owners potentially eligible for a HAL product to a range of issues related to repair and maintenance, their previous experience of lending and lenders, and the views on HAL and any barriers to use.”
The first two objectives can be easily summarised together in a single question, “How many homeowners in Scotland would be eligible for a HAL product?” The third objective, however, is clearly distinct and secondary, focusing on “What factors are likely to influence the take-up of a HAL product?” Why distinct? Because the answer to this second question is unrelated to the first. Why secondary? Well this is based on consideration of what is the primary purpose of the research - the policy requirements and what is driving the research. If you are faced with two distinct questions, you will need to take a view on which is more important.
It is clear that the primary question here requires some form of quantitative approach. The second question, however, suggests a qualitative approach. So, the research needs to comprise two separate exercises, with two different methodologies, answering two different questions. In the end, the “How many…” question was explored by modeling existing data, while the “What factors are likely to influence…” question used telephone depth interviews (as those who are eligible for a HAL product are relatively small in number and widely dispersed).
Getting to a single question summary of the research will not only assist in deciding what broad methodological approach to take, it will help provide a focus for the whole of the research process. It should help define who will be the research participants and will guide any questionnaire design stage. When there are competing demands for inclusion in a questionnaire from a variety of different stakeholders, the focus of a single question can help steer debate and allow various requests to be prioritised. At the latter stages of a project, it will suggest how data should be analysed. And the final report, of course, should clearly be a response to your question.
Reaching your perfect question is a challenging task that requires you to deliberate on the primary reason for the research, think critically about the terms you are using, and assess where ambiguity may remain. The process is not as easy as it looks - we’ve shown two reasonably straightforward examples to illustrate the process as clearly as possible. You may well have briefs or requests from policy clients that are much more complex and seem impossible to summarise as a single-sentence question. These are precisely the situations where the exercise is most valuable and where a clear focus is most useful.
It’s a challenging process, but it does encourage precision and focus, and you’ll end up with a question that should illuminate your path through the research process. And a single question is a better guiding light than half a dozen objectives. Try it – go question!