a research question based on a social science perspective

Daria Gritsenko, PhD

Thinking with concepts, top social science questions.

Social science is the scholarly study of human society and social relationships. It is a tremendously important branch of research that examines  what it means to be a social being, how individuals function together as organized groups and societies, and how they interact with each other on issues of common interest. Yet, this remains very broad to provide proper guidance to an early career researcher, as myself. In particular, a researcher en route to social impact. In order to be socially relevant, social research has to be problem-driven. I think, the most pressing problems of today are

(1) sustainability transition , incl. natural resource governance, climate change, and decoupling of well-being from consumption;

(2) intercultural conflicts , religious controversies, new sources of violence, and pathways to democracy, tolerance, equality, and peace;

(3) unbridled reliance on technology of digitalisation and automation/AI leading to individual deskilling, societal depoliticisation, new political economy of tech giants, and loss of social competences.

Yet, it does not mean that we can tackle these issues straight away. Indeed, over a century of institutionalized social research already provided us with some important insights, but as our environment changes, so do the answers.

Having asked myself this question – What are the most important questions in social science today? – I decided to search for what is being considered by the scholarly community as the most pressing questions that social scientists should tackle today, the unresolved issues that young scholars should work upon. And I found a few. I think that paying attention to the most urgent social science problems will equip us with tools to address these problems. We are free in choosing our cases, methods of analysis, and testing different theories, yet, we are indebted to the society (and tax-payers) to act at the edge of human knowledge and to be socially relevant keeping in mind the BIG picture.

Top ten social science questions

( Nature 470 , 18-19 (2011) doi:10.1038/470018a):

1. How can we induce people to look after their health?

2. How do societies create effective and resilient institutions, such as governments?

3. How can humanity increase its collective wisdom?

4. How do we reduce the ‘skill gap’ between black and white people in America?

5. How can we aggregate information possessed by individuals to make the best decisions?

6. How can we understand the human capacity to create and articulate knowledge?

7. Why do so many female workers still earn less than male workers?

8. How and why does the ‘social’ become ‘biological’?

9. How can we be robust against ‘black swans’ — rare events that have extreme consequences?

10. Why do social processes, in particular civil violence, either persist over time or suddenly change?

During the symposium in Harvard that led to formulation of these problems, a few other concrete puzzles received a lot of attention, too (details from Nature) :

11.  How physiological and psychological attributes, such as obesity and loneliness, can spread through a social network like a contagious disease?

12.  How to explain “small outbursts of creativity and achievement”: such Renaissance Florence, the Scottish Enlightenment, Silicon Valley?

13.  What are the sources of social inequality and how does it relate to political institutions and social structures?

14. We’re better at biology than behavior. Some of the social problems are ‘solved’ from the technical point of view.  How to foster behavioral change?

15. What is the causal effect of culture on human behavior and how can better models of what culture is and how it works be developed?

Here also 1 0 reasons why we need social sciences .

One thought on “ Top social science questions ”

Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular post! It’s the little changes that produce the most significant changes. Thanks for sharing!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• The Research Problem/Question
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A research problem is a definite or clear expression [statement] about an area of concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in scholarly literature, in theory, or within existing practice that points to a need for meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation. A research problem does not state how to do something, offer a vague or broad proposition, or present a value question. In the social and behavioral sciences, studies are most often framed around examining a problem that needs to be understood and resolved in order to improve society and the human condition.

Bryman, Alan. “The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10 (2007): 5-20; Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, editors. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 105-117; Pardede, Parlindungan. “Identifying and Formulating the Research Problem." Research in ELT: Module 4 (October 2018): 1-13; Li, Yanmei, and Sumei Zhang. "Identifying the Research Problem." In Applied Research Methods in Urban and Regional Planning . (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2022), pp. 13-21.

Importance of...

The purpose of a problem statement is to:

• Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied . The reader is oriented to the significance of the study.
• Anchors the research questions, hypotheses, or assumptions to follow . It offers a concise statement about the purpose of your paper.
• Place the topic into a particular context that defines the parameters of what is to be investigated.
• Provide the framework for reporting the results and indicates what is probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings will present this information.

In the social sciences, the research problem establishes the means by which you must answer the "So What?" question. This declarative question refers to a research problem surviving the relevancy test [the quality of a measurement procedure that provides repeatability and accuracy]. Note that answering the "So What?" question requires a commitment on your part to not only show that you have reviewed the literature, but that you have thoroughly considered the significance of the research problem and its implications applied to creating new knowledge and understanding or informing practice.

To survive the "So What" question, problem statements should possess the following attributes:

• Clarity and precision [a well-written statement does not make sweeping generalizations and irresponsible pronouncements; it also does include unspecific determinates like "very" or "giant"],
• Demonstrate a researchable topic or issue [i.e., feasibility of conducting the study is based upon access to information that can be effectively acquired, gathered, interpreted, synthesized, and understood],
• Identification of what would be studied, while avoiding the use of value-laden words and terms,
• Identification of an overarching question or small set of questions accompanied by key factors or variables,
• Identification of key concepts and terms,
• Articulation of the study's conceptual boundaries or parameters or limitations,
• Some generalizability in regards to applicability and bringing results into general use,
• Conveyance of the study's importance, benefits, and justification [i.e., regardless of the type of research, it is important to demonstrate that the research is not trivial],
• Does not have unnecessary jargon or overly complex sentence constructions; and,
• Conveyance of more than the mere gathering of descriptive data providing only a snapshot of the issue or phenomenon under investigation.

Bryman, Alan. “The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10 (2007): 5-20; Brown, Perry J., Allen Dyer, and Ross S. Whaley. "Recreation Research—So What?" Journal of Leisure Research 5 (1973): 16-24; Castellanos, Susie. Critical Writing and Thinking. The Writing Center. Dean of the College. Brown University; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova. "Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem." Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); Thesis and Purpose Statements. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Selwyn, Neil. "‘So What?’…A Question that Every Journal Article Needs to Answer." Learning, Media, and Technology 39 (2014): 1-5; Shoket, Mohd. "Research Problem: Identification and Formulation." International Journal of Research 1 (May 2014): 512-518.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Types and Content

There are four general conceptualizations of a research problem in the social sciences:

• Casuist Research Problem -- this type of problem relates to the determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing moral dilemmas through the application of general rules and the careful distinction of special cases.
• Difference Research Problem -- typically asks the question, “Is there a difference between two or more groups or treatments?” This type of problem statement is used when the researcher compares or contrasts two or more phenomena. This a common approach to defining a problem in the clinical social sciences or behavioral sciences.
• Descriptive Research Problem -- typically asks the question, "what is...?" with the underlying purpose to describe the significance of a situation, state, or existence of a specific phenomenon. This problem is often associated with revealing hidden or understudied issues.
• Relational Research Problem -- suggests a relationship of some sort between two or more variables to be investigated. The underlying purpose is to investigate specific qualities or characteristics that may be connected in some way.

A problem statement in the social sciences should contain :

• A lead-in that helps ensure the reader will maintain interest over the study,
• A declaration of originality [e.g., mentioning a knowledge void or a lack of clarity about a topic that will be revealed in the literature review of prior research],
• An indication of the central focus of the study [establishing the boundaries of analysis], and
• An explanation of the study's significance or the benefits to be derived from investigating the research problem.

NOTE :   A statement describing the research problem of your paper should not be viewed as a thesis statement that you may be familiar with from high school. Given the content listed above, a description of the research problem is usually a short paragraph in length.

II.  Sources of Problems for Investigation

The identification of a problem to study can be challenging, not because there's a lack of issues that could be investigated, but due to the challenge of formulating an academically relevant and researchable problem which is unique and does not simply duplicate the work of others. To facilitate how you might select a problem from which to build a research study, consider these sources of inspiration:

Deductions from Theory This relates to deductions made from social philosophy or generalizations embodied in life and in society that the researcher is familiar with. These deductions from human behavior are then placed within an empirical frame of reference through research. From a theory, the researcher can formulate a research problem or hypothesis stating the expected findings in certain empirical situations. The research asks the question: “What relationship between variables will be observed if theory aptly summarizes the state of affairs?” One can then design and carry out a systematic investigation to assess whether empirical data confirm or reject the hypothesis, and hence, the theory.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives Identifying a problem that forms the basis for a research study can come from academic movements and scholarship originating in disciplines outside of your primary area of study. This can be an intellectually stimulating exercise. A review of pertinent literature should include examining research from related disciplines that can reveal new avenues of exploration and analysis. An interdisciplinary approach to selecting a research problem offers an opportunity to construct a more comprehensive understanding of a very complex issue that any single discipline may be able to provide.

Interviewing Practitioners The identification of research problems about particular topics can arise from formal interviews or informal discussions with practitioners who provide insight into new directions for future research and how to make research findings more relevant to practice. Discussions with experts in the field, such as, teachers, social workers, health care providers, lawyers, business leaders, etc., offers the chance to identify practical, “real world” problems that may be understudied or ignored within academic circles. This approach also provides some practical knowledge which may help in the process of designing and conducting your study.

Personal Experience Don't undervalue your everyday experiences or encounters as worthwhile problems for investigation. Think critically about your own experiences and/or frustrations with an issue facing society or related to your community, your neighborhood, your family, or your personal life. This can be derived, for example, from deliberate observations of certain relationships for which there is no clear explanation or witnessing an event that appears harmful to a person or group or that is out of the ordinary.

Relevant Literature The selection of a research problem can be derived from a thorough review of pertinent research associated with your overall area of interest. This may reveal where gaps exist in understanding a topic or where an issue has been understudied. Research may be conducted to: 1) fill such gaps in knowledge; 2) evaluate if the methodologies employed in prior studies can be adapted to solve other problems; or, 3) determine if a similar study could be conducted in a different subject area or applied in a different context or to different study sample [i.e., different setting or different group of people]. Also, authors frequently conclude their studies by noting implications for further research; read the conclusion of pertinent studies because statements about further research can be a valuable source for identifying new problems to investigate. The fact that a researcher has identified a topic worthy of further exploration validates the fact it is worth pursuing.

III.  What Makes a Good Research Statement?

A good problem statement begins by introducing the broad area in which your research is centered, gradually leading the reader to the more specific issues you are investigating. The statement need not be lengthy, but a good research problem should incorporate the following features:

1.  Compelling Topic The problem chosen should be one that motivates you to address it but simple curiosity is not a good enough reason to pursue a research study because this does not indicate significance. The problem that you choose to explore must be important to you, but it must also be viewed as important by your readers and to a the larger academic and/or social community that could be impacted by the results of your study. 2.  Supports Multiple Perspectives The problem must be phrased in a way that avoids dichotomies and instead supports the generation and exploration of multiple perspectives. A general rule of thumb in the social sciences is that a good research problem is one that would generate a variety of viewpoints from a composite audience made up of reasonable people. 3.  Researchability This isn't a real word but it represents an important aspect of creating a good research statement. It seems a bit obvious, but you don't want to find yourself in the midst of investigating a complex research project and realize that you don't have enough prior research to draw from for your analysis. There's nothing inherently wrong with original research, but you must choose research problems that can be supported, in some way, by the resources available to you. If you are not sure if something is researchable, don't assume that it isn't if you don't find information right away--seek help from a librarian !

NOTE:   Do not confuse a research problem with a research topic. A topic is something to read and obtain information about, whereas a problem is something to be solved or framed as a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution, or explained as a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation. In short, a research topic is something to be understood; a research problem is something that needs to be investigated.

IV.  Asking Analytical Questions about the Research Problem

Research problems in the social and behavioral sciences are often analyzed around critical questions that must be investigated. These questions can be explicitly listed in the introduction [i.e., "This study addresses three research questions about women's psychological recovery from domestic abuse in multi-generational home settings..."], or, the questions are implied in the text as specific areas of study related to the research problem. Explicitly listing your research questions at the end of your introduction can help in designing a clear roadmap of what you plan to address in your study, whereas, implicitly integrating them into the text of the introduction allows you to create a more compelling narrative around the key issues under investigation. Either approach is appropriate.

The number of questions you attempt to address should be based on the complexity of the problem you are investigating and what areas of inquiry you find most critical to study. Practical considerations, such as, the length of the paper you are writing or the availability of resources to analyze the issue can also factor in how many questions to ask. In general, however, there should be no more than four research questions underpinning a single research problem.

Given this, well-developed analytical questions can focus on any of the following:

• Highlights a genuine dilemma, area of ambiguity, or point of confusion about a topic open to interpretation by your readers;
• Yields an answer that is unexpected and not obvious rather than inevitable and self-evident;
• Provokes meaningful thought or discussion;
• Raises the visibility of the key ideas or concepts that may be understudied or hidden;
• Suggests the need for complex analysis or argument rather than a basic description or summary; and,
• Offers a specific path of inquiry that avoids eliciting generalizations about the problem.

NOTE:   Questions of how and why concerning a research problem often require more analysis than questions about who, what, where, and when. You should still ask yourself these latter questions, however. Thinking introspectively about the who, what, where, and when of a research problem can help ensure that you have thoroughly considered all aspects of the problem under investigation and helps define the scope of the study in relation to the problem.

V.  Mistakes to Avoid

Beware of circular reasoning! Do not state the research problem as simply the absence of the thing you are suggesting. For example, if you propose the following, "The problem in this community is that there is no hospital," this only leads to a research problem where:

• The need is for a hospital
• The objective is to create a hospital
• The method is to plan for building a hospital, and
• The evaluation is to measure if there is a hospital or not.

This is an example of a research problem that fails the "So What?" test . In this example, the problem does not reveal the relevance of why you are investigating the fact there is no hospital in the community [e.g., perhaps there's a hospital in the community ten miles away]; it does not elucidate the significance of why one should study the fact there is no hospital in the community [e.g., that hospital in the community ten miles away has no emergency room]; the research problem does not offer an intellectual pathway towards adding new knowledge or clarifying prior knowledge [e.g., the county in which there is no hospital already conducted a study about the need for a hospital, but it was conducted ten years ago]; and, the problem does not offer meaningful outcomes that lead to recommendations that can be generalized for other situations or that could suggest areas for further research [e.g., the challenges of building a new hospital serves as a case study for other communities].

Alvesson, Mats and Jörgen Sandberg. “Generating Research Questions Through Problematization.” Academy of Management Review 36 (April 2011): 247-271 ; Choosing and Refining Topics. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; D'Souza, Victor S. "Use of Induction and Deduction in Research in Social Sciences: An Illustration." Journal of the Indian Law Institute 24 (1982): 655-661; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova. "Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem." Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); How to Write a Research Question. The Writing Center. George Mason University; Invention: Developing a Thesis Statement. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Problem Statements PowerPoint Presentation. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Procter, Margaret. Using Thesis Statements. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Shoket, Mohd. "Research Problem: Identification and Formulation." International Journal of Research 1 (May 2014): 512-518; Trochim, William M.K. Problem Formulation. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Thesis and Purpose Statements. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Pardede, Parlindungan. “Identifying and Formulating the Research Problem." Research in ELT: Module 4 (October 2018): 1-13; Walk, Kerry. Asking an Analytical Question. [Class handout or worksheet]. Princeton University; White, Patrick. Developing Research Questions: A Guide for Social Scientists . New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2009; Li, Yanmei, and Sumei Zhang. "Identifying the Research Problem." In Applied Research Methods in Urban and Regional Planning . (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2022), pp. 13-21.

• << Previous: Background Information
• Next: Theoretical Framework >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 9:12 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

9 9. Writing your research question

Chapter outline.

• Empirical vs. ethical questions (4 minute read)
• Characteristics of a good research question (4 minute read)
• Quantitative research questions (7 minute read)
• Qualitative research questions (3 minute read)
• Evaluating and updating your research questions (4 minute read)

Content warning: examples in this chapter include references to sexual violence, sexism, substance use disorders, homelessness, domestic violence, the child welfare system, cissexism and heterosexism, and truancy and school discipline.

9.1 Empirical vs. ethical questions

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

• Define empirical questions and provide an example
• Define ethical questions and provide an example

Writing a good research question is an art and a science. It is a science because you have to make sure it is clear, concise, and well-developed. It is an art because often your language needs “wordsmithing” to perfect and clarify the meaning. This is an exciting part of the research process; however, it can also be one of the most stressful.

Creating a good research question begins by identifying a topic you are interested in studying. At this point, you already have a working question. You’ve been applying it to the exercises in each chapter, and after reading more about your topic in the scholarly literature, you’ve probably gone back and revised your working question a few times. We’re going to continue that process in more detail in this chapter. Keep in mind that writing research questions is an iterative process, with revisions happening week after week until you are ready to start your project.

Empirical vs. ethical questions

When it comes to research questions, social science is best equipped to answer empirical   questions —those that can be answered by real experience in the real world—as opposed to  ethical   questions —questions about which people have moral opinions and that may not be answerable in reference to the real world. While social workers have explicit ethical obligations (e.g., service, social justice), research projects ask empirical questions to help actualize and support the work of upholding those ethical principles.

In order to help you better understand the difference between ethical and empirical questions, let’s consider a topic about which people have moral opinions. How about SpongeBob SquarePants? [1] In early 2005, members of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family (2005) [2] denounced this seemingly innocuous cartoon character as “morally offensive” because they perceived his character to be one that promotes a “pro-gay agenda.” Focus on the Family supported their claim that SpongeBob is immoral by citing his appearance in a children’s video designed to promote tolerance of all family forms (BBC News, 2005). [3] They also cited SpongeBob’s regular hand-holding with his male sidekick Patrick as further evidence of his immorality.

So, can we now conclude that SpongeBob SquarePants is immoral? Not so fast. While your mother or a newspaper or television reporter may provide an answer, a social science researcher cannot. Questions of morality are ethical, not empirical. Of course, this doesn’t mean that social science researchers cannot study opinions about or social meanings surrounding SpongeBob SquarePants (Carter, 2010). [4] We study humans after all, and as you will discover in the following chapters of this textbook, we are trained to utilize a variety of scientific data-collection techniques to understand patterns of human beliefs and behaviors. Using these techniques, we could find out how many people in the United States find SpongeBob morally reprehensible, but we could never learn, empirically, whether SpongeBob is in fact morally reprehensible.

Let’s consider an example from a recent MSW research class I taught. A student group wanted to research the penalties for sexual assault. Their original research question was: “How can prison sentences for sexual assault be so much lower than the penalty for drug possession?” Outside of the research context, that is a darn good question! It speaks to how the War on Drugs and the patriarchy have distorted the criminal justice system towards policing of drug crimes over gender-based violence.

Unfortunately, it is an ethical question, not an empirical one. To answer that question, you would have to draw on philosophy and morality, answering what it is about human nature and society that allows such unjust outcomes. However, you could not answer that question by gathering data about people in the real world. If I asked people that question, they would likely give me their opinions about drugs, gender-based violence, and the criminal justice system. But I wouldn’t get the real answer about why our society tolerates such an imbalance in punishment.

As the students worked on the project through the semester, they continued to focus on the topic of sexual assault in the criminal justice system. Their research question became more empirical because they read more empirical articles about their topic. One option that they considered was to evaluate intervention programs for perpetrators of sexual assault to see if they reduced the likelihood of committing sexual assault again. Another option they considered was seeing if counties or states with higher than average jail sentences for sexual assault perpetrators had lower rates of re-offense for sexual assault. These projects addressed the ethical question of punishing perpetrators of sexual violence but did so in a way that gathered and analyzed empirical real-world data. Our job as social work researchers is to gather social facts about social work issues, not to judge or determine morality.

Key Takeaways

• Empirical questions are distinct from ethical questions.
• There are usually a number of ethical questions and a number of empirical questions that could be asked about any single topic.
• While social workers may research topics about which people have moral opinions, a researcher’s job is to gather and analyze empirical data.
• Take a look at your working question. Make sure you have an empirical question, not an ethical one. To perform this check, describe how you could find an answer to your question by conducting a study, like a survey or focus group, with real people.

9.2 Characteristics of a good research question

• Identify and explain the key features of a good research question
• Explain why it is important for social workers to be focused and clear with the language they use in their research questions

Now that you’ve made sure your working question is empirical, you need to revise that working question into a formal research question. So, what makes a good research question? First, it is generally written in the form of a question. To say that your research question is “the opioid epidemic” or “animal assisted therapy” or “oppression” would not be correct. You need to frame your topic as a question, not a statement. A good research question is also one that is well-focused. A well-focused question helps you tune out irrelevant information and not try to answer everything about the world all at once. You could be the most eloquent writer in your class, or even in the world, but if the research question about which you are writing is unclear, your work will ultimately lack direction.

In addition to being written in the form of a question and being well-focused, a good research question is one that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. For example, if your interest is in gender norms, you could ask, “Does gender affect a person’s performance of household tasks?” but you will have nothing left to say once you discover your yes or no answer. Instead, why not ask, about the relationship between gender and household tasks. Alternatively, maybe we are interested in how or to what extent gender affects a person’s contributions to housework in a marriage? By tweaking your question in this small way, you suddenly have a much more fascinating question and more to say as you attempt to answer it.

A good research question should also have more than one plausible answer. In the example above, the student who studied the relationship between gender and household tasks had a specific interest in the impact of gender, but she also knew that preferences might be impacted by other factors. For example, she knew from her own experience that her more traditional and socially conservative friends were more likely to see household tasks as part of the female domain, and were less likely to expect their male partners to contribute to those tasks. Thinking through the possible relationships between gender, culture, and household tasks led that student to realize that there were many plausible answers to her questions about how  gender affects a person’s contribution to household tasks. Because gender doesn’t exist in a vacuum, she wisely felt that she needed to consider other characteristics that work together with gender to shape people’s behaviors, likes, and dislikes. By doing this, the student considered the third feature of a good research question–she thought about relationships between several concepts. While she began with an interest in a single concept—household tasks—by asking herself what other concepts (such as gender or political orientation) might be related to her original interest, she was able to form a question that considered the relationships  among  those concepts.

This student had one final component to consider. Social work research questions must contain a target population. Her study would be very different if she were to conduct it on older adults or immigrants who just arrived in a new country. The target population is the group of people whose needs your study addresses. Maybe the student noticed issues with household tasks as part of her social work practice with first-generation immigrants, and so she made it her target population. Maybe she wants to address the needs of another community. Whatever the case, the target population should be chosen while keeping in mind social work’s responsibility to work on behalf of marginalized and oppressed groups.

In sum, a good research question generally has the following features:

• It is written in the form of a question
• It is clearly written
• It cannot be answered with “yes” or “no”
• It has more than one plausible answer
• It considers relationships among multiple variables
• It is specific and clear about the concepts it addresses
• It includes a target population
• A poorly focused research question can lead to the demise of an otherwise well-executed study.
• Research questions should be clearly worded, consider relationships between multiple variables, have more than one plausible answer, and address the needs of a target population.

Okay, it’s time to write out your first draft of a research question.

• Once you’ve done so, take a look at the checklist in this chapter and see if your research question meets the criteria to be a good one.

Brainstorm whether your research question might be better suited to quantitative or qualitative methods.

• Describe why your question fits better with quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Provide an alternative research question that fits with the other type of research method.

9.3 Quantitative research questions

• Describe how research questions for exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory quantitative questions differ and how to phrase them
• Identify the differences between and provide examples of strong and weak explanatory research questions

Quantitative descriptive questions

The type of research you are conducting will impact the research question that you ask. Probably the easiest questions to think of are quantitative descriptive questions. For example, “What is the average student debt load of MSW students?” is a descriptive question—and an important one. We aren’t trying to build a causal relationship here. We’re simply trying to describe how much debt MSW students carry. Quantitative descriptive questions like this one are helpful in social work practice as part of community scans, in which human service agencies survey the various needs of the community they serve. If the scan reveals that the community requires more services related to housing, child care, or day treatment for people with disabilities, a nonprofit office can use the community scan to create new programs that meet a defined community need.

Quantitative descriptive questions will often ask for percentage, count the number of instances of a phenomenon, or determine an average. Descriptive questions may only include one variable, such as ours about student debt load, or they may include multiple variables. Because these are descriptive questions, our purpose is not to investigate causal relationships between variables. To do that, we need to use a quantitative explanatory question.

Quantitative explanatory questions

Most studies you read in the academic literature will be quantitative and explanatory. Why is that? If you recall from Chapter 2 , explanatory research tries to build nomothetic causal relationships. They are generalizable across space and time, so they are applicable to a wide audience. The editorial board of a journal wants to make sure their content will be useful to as many people as possible, so it’s not surprising that quantitative research dominates the academic literature.

Structurally, quantitative explanatory questions must contain an independent variable and dependent variable. Questions should ask about the relationship between these variables. The standard format I was taught in graduate school for an explanatory quantitative research question is: “What is the relationship between [independent variable] and [dependent variable] for [target population]?” You should play with the wording for your research question, revising that standard format to match what you really want to know about your topic.

Let’s take a look at a few more examples of possible research questions and consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. Table 9.1 does just that. While reading the table, keep in mind that I have only noted what I view to be the most relevant strengths and weaknesses of each question. Certainly each question may have additional strengths and weaknesses not noted in the table. Each of these questions is drawn from student projects in my research methods classes and reflects the work of many students on their research question over many weeks.

Making it more specific

A good research question should also be specific and clear about the concepts it addresses. A student investigating gender and household tasks knows what they mean by “household tasks.” You likely also have an impression of what “household tasks” means. But are your definition and the student’s definition the same? A participant in their study may think that managing finances and performing home maintenance are household tasks, but the researcher may be interested in other tasks like childcare or cleaning. The only way to ensure your study stays focused and clear is to be specific about what you mean by a concept. The student in our example could pick a specific household task that was interesting to them or that the literature indicated was important—for example, childcare. Or, the student could have a broader view of household tasks, one that encompasses childcare, food preparation, financial management, home repair, and care for relatives. Any option is probably okay, as long as the researcher is clear on what they mean by “household tasks.” Clarifying these distinctions is important as we look ahead to specifying how your variables will be measured in Chapter 11 .

Table 9.2 contains some “watch words” that indicate you may need to be more specific about the concepts in your research question.

It can be challenging to be this specific in social work research, particularly when you are just starting out your project and still reading the literature. If you’ve only read one or two articles on your topic, it can be hard to know what you are interested in studying. Broad questions like “What are the causes of chronic homelessness, and what can be done to prevent it?” are common at the beginning stages of a research project as working questions. However, moving from working questions to research questions in your research proposal requires that you examine the literature on the topic and refine your question over time to be more specific and clear. Perhaps you want to study the effect of a specific anti-homelessness program that you found in the literature. Maybe there is a particular model to fighting homelessness, like Housing First or transitional housing, that you want to investigate further. You may want to focus on a potential cause of homelessness such as LGBTQ+ discrimination that you find interesting or relevant to your practice. As you can see, the possibilities for making your question more specific are almost infinite.

Quantitative exploratory questions

In exploratory research, the researcher doesn’t quite know the lay of the land yet. If someone is proposing to conduct an exploratory quantitative project, the watch words highlighted in Table 9.2 are not problematic at all. In fact, questions such as “What factors influence the removal of children in child welfare cases?” are good because they will explore a variety of factors or causes. In this question, the independent variable is less clearly written, but the dependent variable, family preservation outcomes, is quite clearly written. The inverse can also be true. If we were to ask, “What outcomes are associated with family preservation services in child welfare?”, we would have a clear independent variable, family preservation services, but an unclear dependent variable, outcomes. Because we are only conducting exploratory research on a topic, we may not have an idea of what concepts may comprise our “outcomes” or “factors.” Only after interacting with our participants will we be able to understand which concepts are important.

Remember that exploratory research is appropriate only when the researcher does not know much about topic because there is very little scholarly research. In our examples above, there is extensive literature on the outcomes in family reunification programs and risk factors for child removal in child welfare. Make sure you’ve done a thorough literature review to ensure there is little relevant research to guide you towards a more explanatory question.

• Descriptive quantitative research questions are helpful for community scans but cannot investigate causal relationships between variables.
• Explanatory quantitative research questions must include an independent and dependent variable.
• Exploratory quantitative research questions should only be considered when there is very little previous research on your topic.
• Identify the type of research you are engaged in (descriptive, explanatory, or exploratory).
• Create a quantitative research question for your project that matches with the type of research you are engaged in.

Preferably, you should be creating an explanatory research question for quantitative research.

9.4 Qualitative research questions

• List the key terms associated with qualitative research questions
• Distinguish between qualitative and quantitative research questions

Qualitative research questions differ from quantitative research questions. Because qualitative research questions seek to explore or describe phenomena, not provide a neat nomothetic explanation, they are often more general and openly worded. They may include only one concept, though many include more than one. Instead of asking how one variable causes changes in another, we are instead trying to understand the experiences ,  understandings , and  meanings that people have about the concepts in our research question. These keywords often make an appearance in qualitative research questions.

Let’s work through an example from our last section. In Table 9.1, a student asked, “What is the relationship between sexual orientation or gender identity and homelessness for late adolescents in foster care?” In this question, it is pretty clear that the student believes that adolescents in foster care who identify as LGBTQ+ may be at greater risk for homelessness. This is a nomothetic causal relationship—LGBTQ+ status causes changes in homelessness.

However, what if the student were less interested in  predicting  homelessness based on LGBTQ+ status and more interested in  understanding  the stories of foster care youth who identify as LGBTQ+ and may be at risk for homelessness? In that case, the researcher would be building an idiographic causal explanation . The youths whom the researcher interviews may share stories of how their foster families, caseworkers, and others treated them. They may share stories about how they thought of their own sexuality or gender identity and how it changed over time. They may have different ideas about what it means to transition out of foster care.

Because qualitative questions usually center on idiographic causal relationships, they look different than quantitative questions. Table 9.3 below takes the final research questions from Table 9.1 and adapts them for qualitative research. The guidelines for research questions previously described in this chapter still apply, but there are some new elements to qualitative research questions that are not present in quantitative questions.

• Qualitative research questions often ask about lived experience, personal experience, understanding, meaning, and stories.
• Qualitative research questions may be more general and less specific.
• Qualitative research questions may also contain only one variable, rather than asking about relationships between multiple variables.

Qualitative research questions have one final feature that distinguishes them from quantitative research questions: they can change over the course of a study. Qualitative research is a reflexive process, one in which the researcher adapts their approach based on what participants say and do. The researcher must constantly evaluate whether their question is important and relevant to the participants. As the researcher gains information from participants, it is normal for the focus of the inquiry to shift.

For example, a qualitative researcher may want to study how a new truancy rule impacts youth at risk of expulsion. However, after interviewing some of the youth in their community, a researcher might find that the rule is actually irrelevant to their behavior and thoughts. Instead, their participants will direct the discussion to their frustration with the school administrators or the lack of job opportunities in the area. This is a natural part of qualitative research, and it is normal for research questions and hypothesis to evolve based on information gleaned from participants.

However, this reflexivity and openness unacceptable in quantitative research for good reasons. Researchers using quantitative methods are testing a hypothesis, and if they could revise that hypothesis to match what they found, they could never be wrong! Indeed, an important component of open science and reproducability is the preregistration of a researcher’s hypotheses and data analysis plan in a central repository that can be verified and replicated by reviewers and other researchers. This interactive graphic from 538 shows how an unscrupulous research could come up with a hypothesis and theoretical explanation  after collecting data by hunting for a combination of factors that results in a statistically significant relationship. This is an excellent example of how the positivist assumptions behind quantitative research and intepretivist assumptions behind qualitative research result in different approaches to social science.

• Qualitative research questions often contain words or phrases like “lived experience,” “personal experience,” “understanding,” “meaning,” and “stories.”
• Qualitative research questions can change and evolve over the course of the study.
• Using the guidance in this chapter, write a qualitative research question. You may want to use some of the keywords mentioned above.

9.5 Evaluating and updating your research questions

• Evaluate the feasibility and importance of your research questions
• Begin to match your research questions to specific designs that determine what the participants in your study will do

Feasibility and importance

As you are getting ready to finalize your research question and move into designing your research study, it is important to check whether your research question is feasible for you to answer and what importance your results will have in the community, among your participants, and in the scientific literature

Key questions to consider when evaluating your question’s feasibility include:

• Do you have access to the data you need?
• Will you be able to get consent from stakeholders, gatekeepers, and others?
• Does your project pose risk to individuals through direct harm, dual relationships, or breaches in confidentiality? (see Chapter 6 for more ethical considerations)
• Are you competent enough to complete the study?
• Do you have the resources and time needed to carry out the project?

Key questions to consider when evaluating the importance of your question include:

• Can we answer your research question simply by looking at the literature on your topic?
• How does your question add something new to the scholarly literature? (raises a new issue, addresses a controversy, studies a new population, etc.)
• How will your target population benefit, once you answer your research question?
• How will the community, social work practice, and the broader social world benefit, once you answer your research question?
• Using the questions above, check whether you think your project is feasible for you to complete, given the constrains that student projects face.
• Realistically, explore the potential impact of your project on the community and in the scientific literature. Make sure your question cannot be answered by simply reading more about your topic.

Matching your research question and study design

This chapter described how to create a good quantitative and qualitative research question. In Parts 3 and 4 of this textbook, we will detail some of the basic designs like surveys and interviews that social scientists use to answer their research questions. But which design should you choose?

As with most things, it all depends on your research question. If your research question involves, for example, testing a new intervention, you will likely want to use an experimental design. On the other hand, if you want to know the lived experience of people in a public housing building, you probably want to use an interview or focus group design.

We will learn more about each one of these designs in the remainder of this textbook. We will also learn about using data that already exists, studying an individual client inside clinical practice, and evaluating programs, which are other examples of designs. Below is a list of designs we will cover in this textbook:

• Surveys: online, phone, mail, in-person
• Experiments: classic, pre-experiments, quasi-experiments
• Interviews: in-person or via phone or videoconference
• Focus groups: in-person or via videoconference
• Content analysis of existing data
• Secondary data analysis of another researcher’s data
• Program evaluation

The design of your research study determines what you and your participants will do. In an experiment, for example, the researcher will introduce a stimulus or treatment to participants and measure their responses. In contrast, a content analysis may not have participants at all, and the researcher may simply read the marketing materials for a corporation or look at a politician’s speeches to conduct the data analysis for the study.

I imagine that a content analysis probably seems easier to accomplish than an experiment. However, as a researcher, you have to choose a research design that makes sense for your question and that is feasible to complete with the resources you have. All research projects require some resources to accomplish. Make sure your design is one you can carry out with the resources (time, money, staff, etc.) that you have.

There are so many different designs that exist in the social science literature that it would be impossible to include them all in this textbook. The purpose of the subsequent chapters is to help you understand the basic designs upon which these more advanced designs are built. As you learn more about research design, you will likely find yourself revising your research question to make sure it fits with the design. At the same time, your research question as it exists now should influence the design you end up choosing. There is no set order in which these should happen. Instead, your research project should be guided by whether you can feasibly carry it out and contribute new and important knowledge to the world.

• Research questions must be feasible and important.
• Research questions must match study design.
• Based on what you know about designs like surveys, experiments, and interviews, describe how you might use one of them to answer your research question.
• You may want to refer back to Chapter 2 which discusses how to get raw data about your topic and the common designs used in student research projects.
• Not familiar with SpongeBob SquarePants? You can learn more about him on Nickelodeon’s site dedicated to all things SpongeBob:  http://www.nick.com/spongebob-squarepants/ ↵
• Focus on the Family. (2005, January 26). Focus on SpongeBob.  Christianity Today . Retrieved from  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/januaryweb-only/34.0c.html ↵
• BBC News. (2005, January 20). US right attacks SpongeBob video. Retrieved from:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4190699.stm ↵
• In fact, an MA thesis examines representations of gender and relationships in the cartoon: Carter, A. C. (2010).  Constructing gender and   relationships in “SpongeBob SquarePants”: Who lives in a pineapple under the sea . MA thesis, Department of Communication, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. ↵

research questions that can be answered by systematically observing the real world

unsuitable research questions which are not answerable by systematic observation of the real world but instead rely on moral or philosophical opinions

the group of people whose needs your study addresses

attempts to explain or describe your phenomenon exhaustively, based on the subjective understandings of your participants

"Assuming that the null hypothesis is true and the study is repeated an infinite number times by drawing random samples from the same populations(s), less than 5% of these results will be more extreme than the current result" (Cassidy et al., 2019, p. 233).

whether you can practically and ethically complete the research project you propose

the impact your study will have on participants, communities, scientific knowledge, and social justice

Graduate research methods in social work Copyright © 2021 by Matthew DeCarlo, Cory Cummings, Kate Agnelli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

4. Research Questions

4.2. Types of Research Questions

Learning Objectives

• Define empirical and normative questions and provide examples of each.
• Understand the differences between exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory studies and research questions.

As you move from a research topic to a research question, there are some considerations that should guide how you pose your question. First, social scientists are best equipped to answer empirical questions —questions about the facts of the world around us—as opposed to normative or ethical questions—questions about what we as a society should value. Empirical questions can be answered through research, but the answers to normative questions depend on people’s moral opinions. (To say something is “normative” means that it relates to our norms or standards—what we should do.) While research projects can inform how we make decisions about ethical issues, they cannot directly answer normative questions, which are fundamentally a matter of debate within communities and societies about what sorts of principles they want to uphold.

For example, a student in one of our methods classes wanted to research student athletes. Their original research question was: “Should college athletes be paid?” Outside of a research context, this is a great question—the matter of paying or not paying athletes affects the lives of millions of students, and it speaks to critical issues about what we as a society think a college education should entail, and what is a fair reward for the work people do. Unfortunately, this specific question is a normative one that we need to debate, not an empirical question that we can resolve with research. A tip-off here is that it begins with the word “should,” a normative phrasing that you generally want to avoid in research questions. The answer to such a question would be a series of moral arguments, based on the particular values the author and their audience hold in common.

It’s true that research can help us to make moral arguments. For example, if we learn how much money universities make from college sports, or how all the work that athletes put into training and playing shapes their experience of college, that empirical knowledge could help us decide whether we believe student athletes are being exploited by their universities, and whether we believe they have a moral right to be paid for their labor. But then those questions would be our research questions, rather than the normative question of whether athletes “should” be paid.

Let’s consider another ethical question that research can inform but not answer: is SpongeBob SquarePants immoral? In 2012, a Ukrainian government commission began reviewing that cartoon show in response to complaints by a right-wing religious group that its depiction of depraved behaviors—such as SpongeBob’s regular practice of holding his male sidekick Patrick’s hand—amounted to the “promotion of homosexuality” (Marson 2012). (Before the government body was disbanded in 2015, the National Expert Commission of Ukraine on the Protection of Public Morality evaluated media to ensure television shows and other content adhered to the country’s morality laws regarding pornography and other controversial issues.) The agency called a special session to discuss SpongeBob and other suspect kids’ shows, though ultimately the eponymous sponge and his starfish companion stayed on Ukrainian TV. A decade earlier, SpongeBob had also drawn the ire of U.S. conservative groups for appearing with other popular cartoon characters in a music video intended to teach children about multiculturalism—which the advocacy group Focus on the Family said was “pro-homosexual” and served as an “insidious means” of “manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids” (Kirkpatrick 2005).

Can research answer the question of whether SpongeBob SquarePants is immoral? No, because questions of morality are ethical, not empirical. Your family members and pundits on TV can rant about sponge creatures all they want, and they can make better or worse moral arguments for their positions, but this is not a question a social scientist should build a study around. That said, we sociologists could certainly choose to study the public opinions and cultural meanings that surround a popular show like SpongeBob SquarePants . We could conduct experiments measuring the detrimental effects that watching the show has on children’s behavior. We could even use surveys to find out precisely how many people in the United States find SpongeBob and/or Patrick repugnant. But sadly, we could not settle the question of whether SpongeBob is indeed morally reprehensible, given that it is not an empirical question.

As you start designing your study, your choice of a particular empirical question will also be influenced by your study’s general purpose. There are three approaches that a research study will typically take: exploration , description , or explanation . These are not mutually exclusive categories, and a study may fall into multiple categories.

Exploratory research is often conducted in new areas of inquiry, where the goals of the research are: (1) to scope out the magnitude or extent of a particular phenomenon; (2) to generate some initial ideas or hunches about that phenomenon; or (3) to test the feasibility of undertaking a more extensive study. For instance, if the citizens of a country are generally dissatisfied with their government’s policies during an economic recession, sociologists could create and implement new surveys to measure the extent of that dissatisfaction and probe for possible causes of it, such as anxieties about unemployment, inflation, or higher taxes. This research may not lead to a very accurate understanding of the target problem, but it may be worthwhile nonetheless in order to get a preliminary sense of its nature and extent, serving as a stepping stone to more in-depth research.

Descriptive research is directed at making careful observations and detailed documentation of a phenomenon of interest. Because these observations follow the scientific method, they hopefully are more accurate than casual observations by untrained people. Much exploratory research overlaps with descriptive research: we often want to describe the magnitude of an emerging problem as a starting point in understanding it. Yet descriptive research is also helpful to conduct on an ongoing basis, and it can involve well-studied topics.

A common type of descriptive research is the work of government agencies to tabulate statistics about the population. In the United States, for example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses survey questions to estimate employment by sector every month. The U.S. Census Bureau regularly conducts demographic surveys that allow policymakers and social scientists to track the growth of a wide range of racial and ethnic groups over many years. In general, government agencies, corporations, nonprofits, and other organizations are in great need of such descriptive research so that they understand the circumstances that their citizens, clients, and members are experiencing. They can use these assessments to create new programs or policies to meet people’s needs or preferences. For that reason, if you decide to use your sociological research skills in a nonacademic setting (as described in Chapter 2: Using Sociology in Everyday Life ), you will likely be doing a lot of descriptive research.

That said, descriptive research is also a large component of many studies that academic sociologists do. For example, a sociologist’s ethnographic study of gang activities among adolescent youth in urban areas might entail detailed observations of the children’s activities. A study of religious practices in immigrant communities might chronicle the evolution of those practices over time. In conducting this descriptive research, sociologists are gathering essential information about what is actually going on in the social spaces they observe.

Explanatory research seeks explanations of observed behaviors, problems, or other phenomena. You might think of the difference between descriptive and explanatory research in this way: while the former seeks answers to basic “what,” “where,” “who,” and “when” types of questions, the latter examines questions that are more complex—whether or not one concept affects another, and “why” and “how” those concepts are related. Put another way, explanatory research attempts to “connect the dots” in research, by identifying certain important factors and showing how they lead to specific outcomes. Let’s consider the hypothetical studies we discussed at the end of the last paragraph in this light. For an explanatory study about urban gangs, sociologists might seek to understand the reasons that adolescent youth in urban areas get involved with gangs. For an explanatory study of immigrant religious practices, researchers might examine why these practices evolve in the ways they do within particular local or national contexts.

Most studies you read in the academic literature will be explanatory. Why is that? Explanatory research tries to identify causal relationships that are generalizable across space and time. That means the findings of such research should matter to many people: because we’re learning something fundamental about the relationships between the concepts we’re interested in, our conclusions aren’t limited to a one-off situation or scenario. It also means our findings are actionable: because we know what causes what, we can act individually or collectively to promote, discourage, or alter the phenomenon we’re studying. In other words, explanatory research gives us a better sense of how and why society operates the way it does, rather than just describing what particular aspects of society look like.

Arriving at compelling explanations for social phenomena requires especially strong theoretical and empirical skills. You need to have a sophisticated understanding of how a social process operates and rule out any alternative stories, and you need to collect empirically sound data and rigorously analyze it. For these reasons, sociologists often see explanatory research as a “higher” form of research, one that is exceedingly challenging to do well. At the same time, they will frequently engage in some amount of exploratory and descriptive research for any given study, particularly during its initial phases. Indeed, these other approaches can be especially important in helping us understand a relatively new or hard-to-study phenomenon: without good descriptive research to draw from, any theorizing we do will be built on shaky empirical foundations.

Deciding on the primary purpose of your research will shape the study you ultimately propose and conduct. If you are doing academic work, your instructor or advisor may push you to be less “descriptive” in your approach, and to focus more on seeking out explanations for what you observe. If you are studying a topic that so far has generated only a small amount of literature, however, you may very well want to conduct exploratory research to generate plausible theories, or descriptive research to understand the scale or characteristics of a particular phenomenon.

The overall purpose of your research will also inform the research questions that you pose. Probably the easiest questions to think of are descriptive research questions. For example, “What is the average student debt load of college graduates?” is a descriptive question—and an important one. In this case, you aren’t trying to identify a causal relationship. You’re simply trying to describe how much debt students carry. When you seek to answer a descriptive research question like this one, you might find yourself generating descriptive statistics —counting the number of instances of a phenomenon, or determining an average, median, or percentage. You can also pursue descriptive research questions using qualitative methods. For instance, you might conduct in-depth interviews or focus groups to gauge the public’s view of student debt, describing the range of opinions on that subject.

In the next section, we’ll focus on explanatory research questions. We will detail one strategy for developing questions based on whether your study is using quantitative methods or qualitative methods. We’ll also connect those two types of research questions to two kinds of empirical analysis—deduction and induction.

Key Takeaways

• Empirical questions can be answered through the gathering and analyzing of data. Normative questions have to do with people’s moral values and opinions and can only be informed, but not answered, through empirical research.
• Exploratory research focuses on tentatively understanding new and emerging phenomena by gathering details and formulating plausible theories. Descriptive research involves a careful measurement of what a phenomenon looks like. Explanatory research tries to understand whether and to what extent two concepts are causally related, and how and why they are related.
• Descriptive questions are helpful for assessing current conditions for policy implementation and other purposes, but they do not investigate causal relationships between variables, which social scientists are often interested in.

The Craft of Sociological Research by Victor Tan Chen; Gabriela León-Pérez; Julie Honnold; and Volkan Aytar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Sociology Research Guide

• Source Selection & Evaluation

Characteristics of a Research Question

Topic selection, topic verification.

• Search Tips & Strategies
• Online Sources
• Data & Statistics
• Citing Sources [opens a new window] This link opens in a new window

Library Help

Need assistance? Get in touch!

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 931-540-2560

Research questions have a few characteristics.

• They're open-ended . (They can't be answered with a simple yes or no response.)
• They're often measurable through quantitative data or qualitative measures.
• They summarize the issue/topic being researched.
• They may take a fresh look at an issue or try to solve a problem.

In addition, research questions may . . .

• answer how or why questions.
• fit within a cause/effect structure.
• have a pro/con format.
• introduce an argument that is then supported with evidence .

Topic selection is the process you use to choose your topic. This is the more creative side of topic development. There are several steps to this process.

• Brainstorming. Start a list of topics that interest you and are within the guidelines of the assignment. They could be personal, professional, or academic interests. Researching something that interests you is much more enjoyable and will keep you interested in the research process. Write down related words or phrases. These will be useful at the research stage.
• Reshaping the topic. Sometimes you'll choose a topic that's either too narrow or too broad. Find out ways to broaden or narrow the topic so that it's a better size to fit your research assignment. This is where Wikipedia and generic Google searches are okay. You can use those sites to get other ideas of how your topic idea may work. Perform some simple searches to see what information is out there. (Just be sure not to cite Wikipedia or Google.)
• Looking at the body of research. Once you have a topic that you think is a good size, take a look at the body of research that's available for the topic. Check in catalogs and databases. Look at reputable websites. You want to be sure that your topic has an adequate amount of research before you invest too much time into the idea.
• Revising. Throughout this process, be prepared to revise your topic. Don't think that you have to keep the same topic that you started with. Topic revision happens all the time. In fact, we often develop better topics as a result of this revision!

Topic verification is the process you use to confirm your topic is viable for research. This is the more technical side of topic development. There are also several steps to this process.

• Using search strategies. Do some experimental searching in the databases using search strategies . Try different combinations to see what you find. Use your notes from your brainstorming to search for different synonyms or phrases.
• Locating relevant and reliable information. At this stage, you want to see if you can find both a good quality and good quantity of sources. You don't need to read the entirety of the sources right now. Just read their abstracts and identifying information. Confirm that the sources you find support each other. Double-check the authority of the authors. This is the source evaluation stage.
• Verifying information. Once you've confirmed that the sources are reliable and relevant, decide whether or not you can verify the information in the sources. If your sources corrobate each other, you have a good topic. In fact, even if they dispute each other, that is sometimes okay. It just depends on your topic's goal. However, if you cannot verify the reliability of any of your sources' information, then you may need to start over again with a new topic idea.
• << Previous: Source Selection & Evaluation
• Next: Search Tips & Strategies >>
• Last Updated: Dec 7, 2023 11:04 AM
• URL: https://libguides.columbiastate.edu/sociology

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg
• v.24(1); Jan-Mar 2019

Formulation of Research Question – Stepwise Approach

Simmi k. ratan.

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India

1 Department of Community Medicine, North Delhi Municipal Corporation Medical College, New Delhi, India

2 Department of Pediatric Surgery, Batra Hospital and Research Centre, New Delhi, India

Formulation of research question (RQ) is an essentiality before starting any research. It aims to explore an existing uncertainty in an area of concern and points to a need for deliberate investigation. It is, therefore, pertinent to formulate a good RQ. The present paper aims to discuss the process of formulation of RQ with stepwise approach. The characteristics of good RQ are expressed by acronym “FINERMAPS” expanded as feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant, manageable, appropriate, potential value, publishability, and systematic. A RQ can address different formats depending on the aspect to be evaluated. Based on this, there can be different types of RQ such as based on the existence of the phenomenon, description and classification, composition, relationship, comparative, and causality. To develop a RQ, one needs to begin by identifying the subject of interest and then do preliminary research on that subject. The researcher then defines what still needs to be known in that particular subject and assesses the implied questions. After narrowing the focus and scope of the research subject, researcher frames a RQ and then evaluates it. Thus, conception to formulation of RQ is very systematic process and has to be performed meticulously as research guided by such question can have wider impact in the field of social and health research by leading to formulation of policies for the benefit of larger population.

I NTRODUCTION

A good research question (RQ) forms backbone of a good research, which in turn is vital in unraveling mysteries of nature and giving insight into a problem.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] RQ identifies the problem to be studied and guides to the methodology. It leads to building up of an appropriate hypothesis (Hs). Hence, RQ aims to explore an existing uncertainty in an area of concern and points to a need for deliberate investigation. A good RQ helps support a focused arguable thesis and construction of a logical argument. Hence, formulation of a good RQ is undoubtedly one of the first critical steps in the research process, especially in the field of social and health research, where the systematic generation of knowledge that can be used to promote, restore, maintain, and/or protect health of individuals and populations.[ 1 , 3 , 4 ] Basically, the research can be classified as action, applied, basic, clinical, empirical, administrative, theoretical, or qualitative or quantitative research, depending on its purpose.[ 2 ]

Research plays an important role in developing clinical practices and instituting new health policies. Hence, there is a need for a logical scientific approach as research has an important goal of generating new claims.[ 1 ]

C HARACTERISTICS OF G OOD R ESEARCH Q UESTION

“The most successful research topics are narrowly focused and carefully defined but are important parts of a broad-ranging, complex problem.”

A good RQ is an asset as it:

• Details the problem statement
• Further describes and refines the issue under study
• Adds focus to the problem statement
• Guides data collection and analysis
• Sets context of research.

Hence, while writing RQ, it is important to see if it is relevant to the existing time frame and conditions. For example, the impact of “odd-even” vehicle formula in decreasing the level of air particulate pollution in various districts of Delhi.

A good research is represented by acronym FINERMAPS[ 5 ]

Interesting.

• Appropriate
• Potential value and publishability
• Systematic.

Feasibility means that it is within the ability of the investigator to carry out. It should be backed by an appropriate number of subjects and methodology as well as time and funds to reach the conclusions. One needs to be realistic about the scope and scale of the project. One has to have access to the people, gadgets, documents, statistics, etc. One should be able to relate the concepts of the RQ to the observations, phenomena, indicators, or variables that one can access. One should be clear that the collection of data and the proceedings of project can be completed within the limited time and resources available to the investigator. Sometimes, a RQ appears feasible, but when fieldwork or study gets started, it proves otherwise. In this situation, it is important to write up the problems honestly and to reflect on what has been learned. One should try to discuss with more experienced colleagues or the supervisor so as to develop a contingency plan to anticipate possible problems while working on a RQ and find possible solutions in such situations.

This is essential that one has a real grounded interest in one's RQ and one can explore this and back it up with academic and intellectual debate. This interest will motivate one to keep going with RQ.

The question should not simply copy questions investigated by other workers but should have scope to be investigated. It may aim at confirming or refuting the already established findings, establish new facts, or find new aspects of the established facts. It should show imagination of the researcher. Above all, the question has to be simple and clear. The complexity of a question can frequently hide unclear thoughts and lead to a confused research process. A very elaborate RQ, or a question which is not differentiated into different parts, may hide concepts that are contradictory or not relevant. This needs to be clear and thought-through. Having one key question with several subcomponents will guide your research.

This is the foremost requirement of any RQ and is mandatory to get clearance from appropriate authorities before stating research on the question. Further, the RQ should be such that it minimizes the risk of harm to the participants in the research, protect the privacy and maintain their confidentiality, and provide the participants right to withdraw from research. It should also guide in avoiding deceptive practices in research.

The question should of academic and intellectual interest to people in the field you have chosen to study. The question preferably should arise from issues raised in the current situation, literature, or in practice. It should establish a clear purpose for the research in relation to the chosen field. For example, filling a gap in knowledge, analyzing academic assumptions or professional practice, monitoring a development in practice, comparing different approaches, or testing theories within a specific population are some of the relevant RQs.

Manageable (M): It has the similar essence as of feasibility but mainly means that the following research can be managed by the researcher.

Appropriate (A): RQ should be appropriate logically and scientifically for the community and institution.

Potential value and publishability (P): The study can make significant health impact in clinical and community practices. Therefore, research should aim for significant economic impact to reduce unnecessary or excessive costs. Furthermore, the proposed study should exist within a clinical, consumer, or policy-making context that is amenable to evidence-based change. Above all, a good RQ must address a topic that has clear implications for resolving important dilemmas in health and health-care decisions made by one or more stakeholder groups.

Systematic (S): Research is structured with specified steps to be taken in a specified sequence in accordance with the well-defined set of rules though it does not rule out creative thinking.

Example of RQ: Would the topical skin application of oil as a skin barrier reduces hypothermia in preterm infants? This question fulfills the criteria of a good RQ, that is, feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant.

Types of research question

A RQ can address different formats depending on the aspect to be evaluated.[ 6 ] For example:

• Existence: This is designed to uphold the existence of a particular phenomenon or to rule out rival explanation, for example, can neonates perceive pain?
• Description and classification: This type of question encompasses statement of uniqueness, for example, what are characteristics and types of neuropathic bladders?
• Composition: It calls for breakdown of whole into components, for example, what are stages of reflux nephropathy?
• Relationship: Evaluate relation between variables, for example, association between tumor rupture and recurrence rates in Wilm's tumor
• Descriptive—comparative: Expected that researcher will ensure that all is same between groups except issue in question, for example, Are germ cell tumors occurring in gonads more aggressive than those occurring in extragonadal sites?
• Causality: Does deletion of p53 leads to worse outcome in patients with neuroblastoma?
• Causality—comparative: Such questions frequently aim to see effect of two rival treatments, for example, does adding surgical resection improves survival rate outcome in children with neuroblastoma than with chemotherapy alone?
• Causality–Comparative interactions: Does immunotherapy leads to better survival outcome in neuroblastoma Stage IV S than with chemotherapy in the setting of adverse genetic profile than without it? (Does X cause more changes in Y than those caused by Z under certain condition and not under other conditions).

How to develop a research question

• Begin by identifying a broader subject of interest that lends itself to investigate, for example, hormone levels among hypospadias
• Do preliminary research on the general topic to find out what research has already been done and what literature already exists.[ 7 ] Therefore, one should begin with “information gaps” (What do you already know about the problem? For example, studies with results on testosterone levels among hypospadias
• What do you still need to know? (e.g., levels of other reproductive hormones among hypospadias)
• What are the implied questions: The need to know about a problem will lead to few implied questions. Each general question should lead to more specific questions (e.g., how hormone levels differ among isolated hypospadias with respect to that in normal population)
• Narrow the scope and focus of research (e.g., assessment of reproductive hormone levels among isolated hypospadias and hypospadias those with associated anomalies)
• Is RQ clear? With so much research available on any given topic, RQs must be as clear as possible in order to be effective in helping the writer direct his or her research
• Is the RQ focused? RQs must be specific enough to be well covered in the space available
• Is the RQ complex? RQs should not be answerable with a simple “yes” or “no” or by easily found facts. They should, instead, require both research and analysis on the part of the writer
• Is the RQ one that is of interest to the researcher and potentially useful to others? Is it a new issue or problem that needs to be solved or is it attempting to shed light on previously researched topic
• Is the RQ researchable? Consider the available time frame and the required resources. Is the methodology to conduct the research feasible?
• Is the RQ measurable and will the process produce data that can be supported or contradicted?
• Is the RQ too broad or too narrow?
• Create Hs: After formulating RQ, think where research is likely to be progressing? What kind of argument is likely to be made/supported? What would it mean if the research disputed the planned argument? At this step, one can well be on the way to have a focus for the research and construction of a thesis. Hs consists of more specific predictions about the nature and direction of the relationship between two variables. It is a predictive statement about the outcome of the research, dictate the method, and design of the research[ 1 ]
• Understand implications of your research: This is important for application: whether one achieves to fill gap in knowledge and how the results of the research have practical implications, for example, to develop health policies or improve educational policies.[ 1 , 8 ]

Brainstorm/Concept map for formulating research question

• First, identify what types of studies have been done in the past?
• Is there a unique area that is yet to be investigated or is there a particular question that may be worth replicating?
• Begin to narrow the topic by asking open-ended “how” and “why” questions
• Evaluate the question
• Develop a Hypothesis (Hs)
• Write down the RQ.

Writing down the research question

• State the question in your own words
• Write down the RQ as completely as possible.

For example, Evaluation of reproductive hormonal profile in children presenting with isolated hypospadias)

• Divide your question into concepts. Narrow to two or three concepts (reproductive hormonal profile, isolated hypospadias, compare with normal/not isolated hypospadias–implied)
• Specify the population to be studied (children with isolated hypospadias)
• Refer to the exposure or intervention to be investigated, if any
• Reflect the outcome of interest (hormonal profile).

Another example of a research question

Would the topical skin application of oil as a skin barrier reduces hypothermia in preterm infants? Apart from fulfilling the criteria of a good RQ, that is, feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant, it also details about the intervention done (topical skin application of oil), rationale of intervention (as a skin barrier), population to be studied (preterm infants), and outcome (reduces hypothermia).

Other important points to be heeded to while framing research question

• Make reference to a population when a relationship is expected among a certain type of subjects
• RQs and Hs should be made as specific as possible
• Avoid words or terms that do not add to the meaning of RQs and Hs
• Stick to what will be studied, not implications
• Name the variables in the order in which they occur/will be measured
• Avoid the words significant/”prove”
• Avoid using two different terms to refer to the same variable.

Some of the other problems and their possible solutions have been discussed in Table 1 .

Potential problems and solutions while making research question

G OING B EYOND F ORMULATION OF R ESEARCH Q UESTION–THE P ATH A HEAD

Once RQ is formulated, a Hs can be developed. Hs means transformation of a RQ into an operational analog.[ 1 ] It means a statement as to what prediction one makes about the phenomenon to be examined.[ 4 ] More often, for case–control trial, null Hs is generated which is later accepted or refuted.

A strong Hs should have following characteristics:

• Give insight into a RQ
• Are testable and measurable by the proposed experiments
• Have logical basis
• Follows the most likely outcome, not the exceptional outcome.

E XAMPLES OF R ESEARCH Q UESTION AND H YPOTHESIS

Research question-1.

• Does reduced gap between the two segments of the esophagus in patients of esophageal atresia reduces the mortality and morbidity of such patients?

Hypothesis-1

• Reduced gap between the two segments of the esophagus in patients of esophageal atresia reduces the mortality and morbidity of such patients
• In pediatric patients with esophageal atresia, gap of <2 cm between two segments of the esophagus and proper mobilization of proximal pouch reduces the morbidity and mortality among such patients.

Research question-2

• Does application of mitomycin C improves the outcome in patient of corrosive esophageal strictures?

Hypothesis-2

In patients aged 2–9 years with corrosive esophageal strictures, 34 applications of mitomycin C in dosage of 0.4 mg/ml for 5 min over a period of 6 months improve the outcome in terms of symptomatic and radiological relief. Some other examples of good and bad RQs have been shown in Table 2 .

Examples of few bad (left-hand side column) and few good (right-hand side) research questions

R ESEARCH Q UESTION AND S TUDY D ESIGN

RQ determines study design, for example, the question aimed to find the incidence of a disease in population will lead to conducting a survey; to find risk factors for a disease will need case–control study or a cohort study. RQ may also culminate into clinical trial.[ 9 , 10 ] For example, effect of administration of folic acid tablet in the perinatal period in decreasing incidence of neural tube defect. Accordingly, Hs is framed.

Appropriate statistical calculations are instituted to generate sample size. The subject inclusion, exclusion criteria and time frame of research are carefully defined. The detailed subject information sheet and pro forma are carefully defined. Moreover, research is set off few examples of research methodology guided by RQ:

• Incidence of anorectal malformations among adolescent females (hospital-based survey)
• Risk factors for the development of spontaneous pneumoperitoneum in pediatric patients (case–control design and cohort study)
• Effect of technique of extramucosal ureteric reimplantation without the creation of submucosal tunnel for the preservation of upper tract in bladder exstrophy (clinical trial).

The results of the research are then be available for wider applications for health and social life

C ONCLUSION

A good RQ needs thorough literature search and deep insight into the specific area/problem to be investigated. A RQ has to be focused yet simple. Research guided by such question can have wider impact in the field of social and health research by leading to formulation of policies for the benefit of larger population.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

R EFERENCES

3 Social science theories, methods, and values

Learning Objectives for this Chapter

After reading this Chapter, you should be able to:

• understand, apply, and evaluate core social science values, concepts, and theories, which can help inform and guide our understanding of how the world works, how power is defined and exercised, and how we can critically understand and engage with these concepts when examining the world around us.

Social science theory: theories to explain the world around us

As we have discussed in previous chapters, social science research is concerned with discovering things about the social world: for instance, how people act in different situations, why people act the way they do, how their actions relate to broader social structures, and how societies function at both the micro and macro levels. However, without theory, the ‘social facts’ that we discover cannot be woven together into broader understandings about the world around us.

Theory is the ‘glue’ that holds social facts together. Theory helps us to conceptualise and explain why things are the way they are, rather than only focusing on how things are. In this sense, different theoretical perspectives, such as those discussed in this Chapter, act as different lenses through which we can see and interpret the world around us.

Theory testing and generation is also an important part of social scientific research. As shown in the image below, different theories are rooted in different philosophical foundations. That is, various theories arise in accordance with different ways of seeing and living in the world, as well as different understandings about how knowledge is understood and constructed. As we learned earlier in the book, these concern both ontological and epistemological considerations, but also axiological considerations; that is, questions about the nature of value,  and what things in the world hold value (including in relation to one another). While theory is rooted in these philosophical foundations, however, it also gives way to different ways of doing research, both in terms of the methodology and methods employed. Overall, using different theoretical perspectives to consider social questions is a bit like putting on different pairs of glasses to see the world afresh.

Below we consider some foundational social science theories. While these are certainly not the only  theoretical perspectives that exist, they are often considered to be amongst the most influential. They also provide helpful building blocks for understanding other theoretical perspectives, as well as how theory can be applied to guide and build social scientific knowledge.

Structural functionalism

Structural functionalism is a theory about social institutions, ‘social norms’ (i.e., the often unspoken rules that govern social behaviours), and social stability. We talk more about social institutions in the next Chapter of this book, but essentially they are the ‘big building blocks’ of society that act as both repositories and creators/instigators of social norms. These include things like school/education, the state (often called a meta-institution), the family, the economy, and more. In this regard, structural functionalism is considered a macro theory; that is, it considers macro (large) structures in society, and concerns how they work in an interdependent way to produce what structural functionalists believe to be ‘harmonious’ and stable societies. Structural functionalists are particularly concerned with social institutions’ manifest and latent functions, as well as their functions and dysfunctions (Merton [1910-2003]).

Manifest functions of social institutions include things that are overt and obvious. By contrast, latent functions of social institutions are those that are more hidden or secondary. For instance, a manifest function of the social institution of school is to teach students new knowledge and skills, which can assist them to move into chosen careers. Alternatively, we might also argue that school has other latent functions, such as socialisation and conformity to social norms, and building relationships with peers.

In addition to manifest and latent functions, structural functionalists are also concerned with the  functions  and  dysfunctions  of social institutions. They believe, for instance, that dysfunctions play just as much of an important role as functions, because they enable social institutions to identify and punish them, thereby making an example of dysfunctional elements (e.g., punishing those committing crime). This serves to reinforce social norms around how society should function.

Reflection exercise

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of structural functionalism. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

Structural functionalism: want to learn more?

If you’d like to reinforce your understanding of structural functionalism, the below video provides a good summary that might be helpful.

Functionalism (YouTube, 5:40) :

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is the study of our experiences and how our consciousness makes sense of the phenomena (be they objects, people or ideas) around us. As a methodology or approach in the social sciences it has garnered renewed interest in the last few decades to better understand the world around us by studying how we experience the world in a subjective and often individual manner. It is, thus, considered a ‘micro’ theory.

This philosophical approach was developed by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), and his students and critics in France and Germany (key figures were philosophers Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961)) and later made it to the US via influential sociologists, such as Alfred Schütz (1899–1959).

Phenomenologists reject objectivity and instead focus on the subjective and intersubjective, the relations between people, and between people and objects. So, rather than trying to come to some objective truth, they are more interested in relationships and connections between the individual and the world around them. Indeed, there is a strong centering of and focus on the individual and their experiences of the world that phenomenologists believe can tell us about society at large. The individual is also key, as there is a focus on the sensory and the body both as instruments of enquiring as well as enquiry. Thus, we are always already part of the world around us and have to make sense of being here, but also want to go beyond ourselves by understanding others and how they relate to the world. The body features as a key site for such enquiries as it is the physical connection we have with people and objects around us. Further, there is a focus on everyday, mundane experiences as they have much to tell us about how society operates. This background environment in which we as people operate is called a lifeworld,  the shared horizon of experience we share and inhabit. It is marked by linguistic, cultural, and social codes and norms.

One key method inherent to Husserl’s early approaches is ‘bracketing’ , the process of standing back or aside from phenomena to understand it better. Such processes of ‘reflexivity’ and understanding our taken for granted attitudes and beliefs about certain phenomena are crucial to enable the social sciences to better understand the world around us. Debates in philosophy continue around whether such a bracketing is ever fully possible, especially considering that we as humans remain trapped in our minds and  bodies. Nonetheless, phenomenology has had a profound impact in most social sciences to redirect the focus towards the intersubjective nature of life and the lifeworld, within which we experience the world around us.

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of phenomenology. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

Phenomenology: want to learn more?

If you’d like to reinforce your understanding of phenomenology, the below video provides a good summary that might be helpful.

Understanding Phenomenology (YouTube, 2:59) :

Symbolic interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is related to phenomenology as it is also a theory focused on the self. In this regard, it’s also a micro theory – it has particular focus on individuals and how they interact with one another. Symbolic interactionists say that symbolism is fundamental to how we see ourselves and how we see and interact with others. George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is often regarded as the founder of this theory and his focus was on the relationship between the self and others in society. He considered our individual minds to function through interactions with others and through the shared meanings and symbols we create for the people and objects around us. Mead’s best known book Mind, Self, Society, was posthumously put together by his students and demonstrates how our individual minds allow us to use language and symbols to make sense of the world around us and how we construct a self based on how others perceive us.

Charles Cooley’s (1864-1929) concept of the “ looking glass self ” points out, for instance, that other peoples’ perceptions of us can also influence and change our perceptions of ourselves. Other sociologists, such as Erving Goffman (1922-1982), have built on this understanding, suggesting that ‘all of life is a stage’ and that each of us play different parts, like actors in a play. Goffman argued that we adapt our personality, behaviours, actions, and beliefs to suit the different contexts we find ourselves in. This understanding is often referred to as a ‘dramaturgical model’ of social interaction; it understands our social interactions to be performative – they are the outcomes of our ‘play acting’ different roles.

In explaining this theory, Goffman also referred to what he called ‘impression management’. As part of this, for instance, Goffman drew a crucial distinction between what he referred to as our ‘ front stage selves ‘ and our ‘ backstage selves ‘. For Goffman, our ‘front stage selves’ are those that we are willing to share with the ‘audience’ (e.g., the person or group with whom we are interacting). Alternatively, our ‘backstage selves’ are those that we keep for ourselves; this is the way we act when we are alone and have no audience.

Goffman also pointed to the important role that stigma can play in how we see ourselves and thus, how we act and behave in relation to others. Stigma occurs when “the reaction of others spoils normal identity”. Goffman argued that those who feel stigmatised by others (e.g., through public discourses and ‘frames’ of social issues that vilify certain groups of people) also experience changes in the way they see themselves – that is, their own sense of self-identity is ‘spoiled’. This can lead to other negative effects, such as social withdrawal and poorer health and wellbeing.

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of symbolic interactionism. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

This exercise is to be conducted in small groups. First, get into a small group with other students. Then, do the following:

• Think about your daily life, activities, and interactions with others.
• Take a few moments to identify at least three examples of social symbols that you and other group members frequently use to interpret the world around you.
• Talk about how each of the group members interprets/responds to these symbols. Are there similarities? Are there differences?

Students should share/discuss their thoughts within the group, and if undertaken in a class environment, then report back to the class.

Symbolic interactionism: want to learn more?

If you’d like to reinforce your understanding of symbolic interactionism, the below videos provide good summaries that might be helpful.

Symbolic Interactionism (YouTube, 3:33) provides an easy-to-understand summary of symbolic interactionism:

What does it mean to be me? Erving Goffman and the Performed Self (YouTube, 1:58) provides a helpful summary of Erving Goffman’s conception of the ‘performed self’ – including his notions of a ‘front stage’ and ‘backstage’ self:

Conflict theories

Conflict theories focus particularly on conflict within and across societies and, thus, are particularly interested in power: where it does and doesn’t exist, who does and doesn’t hold it, and what they do or don’t do with it, for example. These theories hold that societies will always be characterised by states of conflict and competition over goods, resources, and more. These conflicts can arise along various lines, though

this group of theories emanate from the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883), who saw the capitalist economy as a primary site of conflict.

In Marx’s view, social ills emanated particularly from what he described as an upper- and lower-class structure, which had been perpetuated across multiple societies (e.g., in ancient societies in terms of slave owners/slaves, or in pre-Enlightenment times between the feudal peasantry/aristocracy). He saw capitalism as replicating this upper/lower class structure through the creation of a bourgeoisie (upper class, who own the means of production) and proletariat (lower class, who supply labour to the capitalist market). Marx also talked about a lumpenproletariat , an underclass without class consciousness and/or organised political power. Classical Marxism takes a macro lens: it is particularly concerned with how power is invested in the social institution of the capitalist economy. In this sense, classical Marxism represents a structural theory of power.

Marx argued that the only way for society to be fairer and more equal was if the proletariat was to rise up and revolt against the bourgeoisie; to “smash the chains of capitalism”! Thus, he strongly advocated for revolution as a means of creating a fairer, utopic society. He stated, “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (Marx 1968: 662). Nevertheless, a series of revolutions in the early 20th century that drew on Marxist thinking resulted in power vacuums that made way for violent, totalitarian regimes, as political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) argued in On the Origins of Totalitarianism . On this basis, subsequent conflict theorists (and critical theorists) have tended towards advocating for more incremental reforms, as opposed to revolution.

Take a few moments to watch the below two videos, which explain conflict theory in greater detail.

Key concepts: Conflict theory – definition and critiques (YouTube, 2:49) :

Political theory – Karl Marx (YouTube, 9:27) :

After watching these videos, take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a definition of conflict theories. After doing so, re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information in the above sub-section, and in the videos? Was anything missing? Is anything still unclear?

Critical theories

Marx saw the capitalist economy as a primary site of oppression, between the working class and the property owning class. Marx advocated for revolution, where the proletariat were urged to rise up and break the chains of capitalism by overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Marx saw this as being necessary for ensuring the freedom of the working classes. Critical theory develops from the work of Karl Marx, supplementing his theory of capitalism with other sociological and philosophical concepts.

Gramsci and cultural hegemony

In addition to Marx, critical theory utilised the work of Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci, specifically his concept of ‘Cultural Hegemony’. When we refer to ‘hegemonic’ social norms, we’re referring to social norms that are regarded as ‘common sense’ and thus, which overshadow and suppress alternative norms. Hegemonic norms typically reflect the values of the ruling classes (in Marxist terms, the bourgeoisie). To learn more, you might like to watch the video below:

Hegemony: WTF? An introduction to Gramsci and cultural hegemony (YouTube, 6:25)

Developing from this, critical theory also considers how power and oppression can operate in more subtle ways across the whole of society. Critical theory does not seek to actively bring about revolution, as the possibility for a revolution in the years post-World War Two was unlikely. Whilst critical theorists are by no means opposed to revolution, their focus lies more in identifying how capitalist society and its institutions limits advancement of human civilisation. In this respect, conflict theorists see more opportunities for praxis than classical Marxists.

Critical theory observes how the Enlightenment ideals of freedom, reason, and liberalism have developed throughout the first half of the 1900s. Ultimately, critical theorists see that reason has not necessarily progressed in a positive way throughout history. In fact, reason has developed to become increasingly technical, interested in classifying, regulating, and standardising all aspects of human society and culture. German philosopher Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) thought that Nazi Germany and the holocaust is a devastating example of the potential evils of rationality if developed without a critical perspective.

Another, less extreme, example of this tendency toward standardisation is in the production of art and culture. Big budget films, typically in the superhero or science fiction genre, all appear to be virtually identical: extravagant special effects, epic soundtracks, and relatively simple plots. However, this is not to say that such films are of a poor quality. Rather the similarity and popularity of these films indicates a homogenisation of culture. If culture is merely the reproduction of the same, how can society progress beyond its current point?

This critique of the development of reason throughout the 20th century does not mean that we must abandon reason entirely. To do so would be to discount the vast wealth of knowledge that humanity has come to grasp, as well as prevent further knowledge production. Instead, critical theorists argue that reason should be critiqued to uncover what has been left out of its development thus far, as well as open up the possibility for a more free, progressive form of society.

At its core, then, critical theory can be thought about as being an additional theoretical lens through which we can look at and understand the social world around us. In tune with Flyvbjerg’s (2001) conception of phronetic social science, critical theorists are also concerned with disrupting the systems they observe as a means of achieving social change. Critical theory urges us to recognise, understand and address how capitalist society reproduces itself and limits the free organisation of human beings.

Take a few moments to watch Critical theory definition and critiques (YouTube, 3:26) , which explains critical theory in greater detail.

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of critical theories. Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above and the video?

Critical theory can be applied in myriad different ways to better understand the world around us. In  Critical theory and the production of mass culture (YouTube, 2:12) , critical theory is adopted as a lens to understand and critique the production of mass culture. Watch the video and then consider the questions below.

• Can you think of examples where you could argue that the primary objective of producing art is to preserve the economic structure of the capitalist system?
• Do you agree with the proposition that mass-consumed entertainment, like popular television shows, are only  produced as a source of light entertainment and escapism from work, and thus serve to placate and pacify the worker? Why or why not? (What other  purposes might such entertainment serve, if any?)
• Do you agree with Adorno’s proposition that the products of the ‘culture industry’ are not only the artworks, but also the consumers themselves? Why or why not?

Critical race theory

Critical race theory applies a critical theory lens to the notion of race, seeking to understand how the concept of race itself can act as a site of power and oppression. Arising from the work of American legal scholars during the 1980s (including key thinkers like Derrick Bell [1930-2011] and Kimberlé Crenshaw [1959-]), it originally sought to understand and challenge “the ways in which race and racial power [were]… cosnstructed and represented in American legal culture and, more generally, in American society as a whole.” (Crenshaw et al. 1995: xiii) In particular, it questioned whether the civil rights afforded to African Americans in the aftermath of the civil rights movement had made a substantive impact on their experiences of social justice. Critical race theorists argued that more needed to be done; that civil rights had not had the desired impacts because (amongst other reasons) they:

• were imagined, shaped and brought into being by (predominantly) white, male middle- or upper-class lawyers, and thus, were only imagined within the bounds of white ontology,
• did not move beyond race – race still mattered, and
• implicitly perpetuated white privilege (e.g. they were constrained to only imagine redress and justice within the existing oppressive, white hegmonic system).

Crenshaw (1995: xiii) writes that, although critical race scholars’ work is heterogenous, they are nevertheless united by the following common interests:

• “The first is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America, and, in particular, to examine the relationship between that social structure and professed ideas such as ‘the rule of law’ and ‘equal protection’.”
• “The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it.”

In Australia, scholars have also taken up aspects of a critical race lens to understand how privilege is bound up with race. As Moreton-Robinson (2015: xiii) puts it, in Australia:

Race matters in the lives of all peoples; for some people it confers unearned privileges, and for others it is the mark of inferiority. Daily newspapers, radio, television, and social media usually portray Indigenous peoples as a deficit model of humanity. We are overrepresented as always lacking, dysfunctional, alcoholic, violent, needy, and lazy… For Indigenous people, white possession is not unmarked, unnamed or invisible; it is hypervisible…

Crenshaw has been crucial in also stressing the key importance of understanding how race can also intersect with other aspects of social identity, such as gender, to produce a ‘double’ or ‘triple’ oppression. In Australia, Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s 2000 book, Talkin’ up to the white woman, was also crucial in understanding how Australian feminism could also be oppressive of Indigenous Australian women by not seeing and hearing them or the specific issues they face/d. She called for the need for “white feminists to relinquish some power, dominance and privilege in Australian feminism to give Indigenous women’s interest some priority” (Moreton-Robinson 2000: xxv). This emphasised that an intersectional lens was needed to acknowledge the different but cumulative impacts of both racial oppression and sexism. At the centre of this argument is the reality that “all white feminists [in Australia] benefit from colonisation; they are overwhelmingly represented and disproportionately predominant, have the key roles, and constitute the norm, the ordinary and the standard of womanhood in Australia” (Moreton-Robinson 2000: xxv).

Uproar over critical race theory

During 2020, racial sensitivity training in the USA prompted widespread discussion about critical race theory. Former US President, Donald Trump, posits in the video below that the theory, and the kinds of racial sensitivity training it promotes, are fundamentally racist – against white people. Others argued that this represented a deep misunderstanding of the theory, but also an ignorance of the extent and power of white privilege.

For an example of former President Trump’s views, watch  Trump: Racial sensitivity training on white privilege is ‘racist’ (YouTube, 3:16) :

Postmodern critique of critical race theory

Postmodernists have levelled critique at critical race theory on the basis that understanding/explaining power as being rooted in racial difference has the consequence of reinforcing and perpetuating the validity of ‘race’. Postmodernism, however, rejects the distinct, conceptual bounds of ‘race’ and racialised identities. Instead, it sees race itself as a social construction, which should be questioned and disrupted, thereby leading to new insights that aren’t constrained by socially constructed definitions of race.

Kwame Anthony Appiah, for example, seeks to “probe the very definitions of race itself. He bypasses the empirical question of whether racism exists to ask the theoretical question of what race and racism are” (in Chong-Soon Lee 1995: 441)

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of critical race theory . Then re-read the above sub-section. How does your understanding fit with the information above?

Putting theory into action: rethinking crime through a critical lens

Critical criminologists apply a critical theory lens to the study of crime and criminality. In this regard, critical criminology is concerned with understanding how the criminal justice system can act as a site of power and oppression; a perspective that tends to sit in contrast with western (non-critical) criminology, which sees the criminal justice system as a natural social institution that has the primarily purpose of protecting society against deviants (criminals) and making an example of those who fail to comply with hegemonic social norms. (This non-critical view draws parallels, for example, with the perceived ‘functions’ of the criminal justice system under a structural functionalist perspective, and its role in making examples of ‘dysfunctional’ elements of society.)

Critical criminologists in Australia have considered the role of the criminal justice system as a key site of oppression under, for example, Australian settler colonialism. For instance, Indigenous Australians are, per capita, the most incarcerated peoples in the entire world ( Anthony & Baldry 2017 ) and these incarceration rates are rising, not reducing (ABS 2018). In using a critical lens to understand the difference between incarceration rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, however, we can seek better insight into how the criminal justice system operates as a site of oppression, perpetuating white settler colonial norms and values, which seek to punish alternative ontologies and epistemologies. Lynch (cited in Cunneen and Tauri 2016: 26) argued,

In short, criminology is one of the disciplines that established the conditions necessary for maintenance of the status quo of power. It can only do so by oppressing those who would undermine the status quo. In this sense, criminology must be viewed as a science of oppression.

In part, this oppression operates through the construction of knowledge and truth within (positivist) criminology (which relates to Foucault’s conception of power-knowledge, as we touched on last week). In turn, this also involves what Cunneen and Tauri (2016: 26) describe as “the ideologically driven dismissal of Indigenous knowledge about the social world as ‘subjective’, ‘unscientific’, and/or at best ‘folk epistemology’… which in turn paves the way for excluding other ways of knowing from the Western, criminological lexicon”.

In their book, Decolonising criminology, Blagg and Anthony (2019: 22-23) set out a taxonomy for what they see as a decolonised criminology (noting, though, that Blagg and Anthony themselves are non-Indigenous researchers, though they have worked closely with Indigenous peoples and communities for decades).  In their taxonomy (which we have included an adapted version of below), they include the following probing comparisons between a positivist (largely uncritical) criminology and a decolonised (critical) criminology:

A table comparing positivist and decolonial approaches to criminology.

Source: Authors’ adaptation from Blagg & Anthony (2019: 22-23 )

The probes and questions that Blagg & Anthony pose in the above taxonomy are critical in their focus and intent; they seek to critique the criminal justice system as a site of colonial power, but they also seek to change it — through research that produces knowledge about these truths. This is, in essence, a reframing (to use Bacchi’s term) of the nature of criminological research towards a richer, and more historically and culturally contextualised understanding of the Australian criminal justice system. As a result, this produces different knowledge about crime and justice in Australia: knowledge that shifts blame away from the individual (the ‘bad’ Indigenous citizen, to use Moreton-Robinson’s [2009] language) to the structures, history and continuation of colonial oppression.

Critical or radical criminology?

Radical criminology is rooted in the Marxist conflict tradition and sees the capitalist economy as being central to the definitions of crime (arrived at by the bourgeoisie) that constrict, control and suppress the working classes (proletariat).

In contrast (or in addition to), critical criminology is interested in more than just class relations and also sees different opportunities for praxis – tending to favour a more incremental approach to social change as opposed to widespread revolution ( Bernard 1981 )

Drawing on a critical criminology and decolonising perspective, consider the below graph, which shows the over-representation of Indigenous Australians in prisons, indicating an upward trend from 2008-2018. Then consider, from a critical criminology standpoint, what kinds of ‘truths’ might you draw on to help explain this trend?

(To guide your thinking, you may like to revisit the above taxonomy by Blagg and Anthony.)

Watch the below short clip of Senator Patrick Dodson talking in March 2021 about the issue of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in custody. Consider LNP Senator, Amanda Stoker’s response to Senator Pat Dodson, in particular her comment that she “understand[s] the outrage is real… because the lives of every person, though our justice system are important, no matter the colour of their skin.”

In #Estimates , @SenatorDodson fires up over a lack of action on deaths in custody. @stoker_aj ‘s response: “I understand the outrage is real…because the lives of every person, through our justice system are important, no matter the colour of their skin.” #Auspol @SBSNews @NITV pic.twitter.com/jgsb8y9YcD — Naveen Razik (@naveenjrazik) March 26, 2021

What do you think about Senator Stoker’s response to Senator Dodson? How might you analyse her response, through a critical race theory lens?

Choose one of the following social issues:

• The gender pay gap
• The workplace ‘stress’ epidemic
• Homelessness
• Childhood obesity

Consider how your chosen social issue might be explained by drawing on the different theoretical perspectives outlined earlier in this Chapter. Record your thoughts in a short, written explanation.

Reflection exercise: a critical reading of meritocracy

Kim and Choi (2017: 112) define meritocracy as “a social system in which advancement in society is based on an individual’s capabilities and merits rather than on the basis of family, wealth, or social background.” According to Kim and Choi (2017: 116), meritocracy has two key features: “impartial competition” and “equality of opportunity”.

The notion of meritocracy has arisen over the past few centuries primarily in response to feudalism and absolute monarchy, where power and privilege are handed down on the basis of familial lines (‘nepotism’) or friendships (‘cronyism’). This kind of system could (and often did) place people into positions of power, regardless of whether they were the most appropriate or ‘best’ person for the job. In essence, then, the notion of meritocracy is intended to tie social advancement to merit; that is, the focus is supposed to be on ‘what you know’ rather than ‘who you know’, which seems a noble cause, right? Many have argued, however, that a blinkered belief in meritocracy leaves a lot of things out of the ‘frame’.

The belief in meritocracy, and its focus on ‘what you know’ rather than ‘who you know’, can have both positive and negative impacts. Take a piece of paper and write a short list of each.

If critical theory operates according to the broad Marxist understanding of history as class struggle, post-structuralism is a theory that attempts to abandon the idea of grand historical narratives altogether. Fundamentally, post-structuralism differs from other social theories in its rejection of metanarratives , its critique of binaries, and its refusal to understand all human action as being shaped solely by universal social structures. Whilst there is much disagreement between post-structuralist thinkers, these three broad trends help us to understand this social theory.

Post-structuralism

Post-structural accounts of conflict and power can take a macro and micro lens. They see power as transcending social structures, like social institutions (e.g., the state, the economy) and instead being all around us at all times. Michel Foucault (1926-1984), for example, argued that power is everywhere and acts upon us to shape our identities, bodies, behaviours, and being. In terms of a liberal democratic society, therefore, where coercive (‘sovereign’) power is only exerted by the state under certain specific circumstances, Foucault argued that the state otherwise uses its power to create ‘responsibilised’ citizens who absorb hegemonic (i.e. authoritative/dominant) social norms and use these to govern themselves . This relates to what Fairclough (1995: 257) referred to as power by consent:

We live in an age in which power is predominantly exercised through the generation of consent rather than through coercion… through the inculcation of self-disciplining practices rather than through the breaking of skulls (though there is still unfortunately no shortage of the latter).

Foucault was also particularly interested in the link between power and knowledge. He argued that those who hold the power tend to construct knowledge and ‘truth’ in certain ways, which can reinforce their power by, for example, perpetuating certain social norms. This is elaborated on by Watts and Hodgson (2019) in reading 5.2, where they describe Foucault’s conception of power/knowledge as follows:

Truth is not neutral or objective, and is not simply a thing that can be verified scientifically because its ‘truth value’ is dependent on the operation and circulation of power (think, for example, the oft-quoted phrase that ‘truth is whatever the powerful say it is’). In the context of the human and social sciences, power creates knowledge and is also a force for the translation of knowledge of and about human beings into practice… For example, the moment we speak into existence the concept of something as commonplace as ‘human being’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘social justice’ we are using some form of power (truth) to render such things thinkable and knowable as things in the world (Watts and Hodgson 2019: 85-86).

Take a piece of paper and, in your own words, write down a brief definition of Foucault’s post-structural concept of power. Then, re-read the above account. Does your definition align with the information above?

Beck and Risk Society

The notion of risk society is outlined by Ulrich Beck in his 1992 book ‘Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity’. Where society was once organised around wealth distribution based on scarcity, Beck argues that society is becoming increasingly based on the distribution of risks. Risks are defined as “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself” (Beck 1992: 21). Beck argues that the process of modernisation is no longer focused exclusively on the creation of new technologies, but rather the focus lies in the management of risks of potential technologies. As such, modernisation is becoming increasingly reflexive, involved not only in the production of technologies to meet needs, but rather investigating the often unknown side-effects of technologies. For example, a nuclear energy plant might be built in order to meet society’s increasing energy demand. However, this solution to a specific problem then must deal with the new issue of disposing of this radioactive waste that modernisation itself has produced. This is just one example of the ecological risks inherent with the development of new technologies, which often have unintended side-effects, that must themselves be uncovered and solved.

Postmodernism

Before we can get to postmodernism, we need to define modernism to see what postmodernism wants to supersede. Modernism describes the social upheaval and major changes of 20th century life. It is marked by processes of industrialisation, rationalisation and bureaucratisation – in short a world in which the sciences seemed to provide ever more answers and ultimate truths about the world and us. Modernism or modernity was also about hope for a new society, unfettered technological and material progress and, with advances in scientific fields, led to longer lives and new and exciting materials to make new things to make life easier (think household machines). It was also punctured by some key social movements that brought the world to the brink of destruction in the epic fight over what ultimate truth should prevail. The key political ideologies of fascism, socialism and liberalism clashed in the second World War over their different visions for a new world order. In the post war climate of a new stand-off between socialism/communism and liberalism or the Soviet bloc and ‘the West’ many writers, academics and artists became disillusioned with the modernist project. Slowly critiques of these universalising truths and meta-narratives came to think of this time as a time of postmodernism. Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998) defined postmodernism as the ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’, by which he meant that increasingly people were no longer persuaded by grand or master narratives about themselves, a particular nation, people or even humanity. The singular, stable, coherent modern subject was thrown into a void and thus becomes fragmented, fluid and plural in the postmodern. No one truth exists anymore and the certainty of facts becomes disputed and muddied once more. Thus, postmodernity is about scepticism, deconstruction and questioning rather than offering answers and solutions. This has made it a controversial theory or topic as it offers little in the way of hope for a better world, indeed it is often seen as dystopic. Inherent in many postmodern critiques of current society is a critique of (late) capitalism and consumer or mass culture that pervade every aspect of our lives, whilst others focus on technology and its pervasive intrusion into our daily lives.

Resources for further learning

• Moreton-Robinson, A. 2015. ‘Introduction: white possession and Indigenous sovereignty matters.’ In. Moreton-Robinson, A.  The White Possessive: property, power and Indigenous sovereignty,  pp. xi-xxiv.
• Powers, C. 2009. Sociology as a coherent discipline: unifying themes. In. Powers, C. Making sense of social theory , Chapter 16.
• Watts, L. and Hodgson, D. 2019. ‘Power and knowledge’. In. Watts, L. and Hodgson, D. Social justice theory and practice for social work, Chapter 5.
• Cunneen, C. and Tauri, J. 2016. ‘Towards a critical Indigenous criminology.’ In. Cunneen, C. and Tauri, J. Indigenous criminology, pp. 23-43.
• Kim, C.H. and Choi, Y.B. 2017. How meritocracy is defined today – contemporary aspects of meritocracy. Economics and Sociology, 10(1): 112-121.
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. ‘Values in social and political inquiry.’ In. Flyvbjerg, B. Making social science matter, Chapter 5.

Other resources:

• Watego, C. 2021.  ‘Who are the real criminals? Making the case for abolishing criminology.’ (YouTube, 1:35:01),
• Anderson, E. 2017. ‘How good social science can and ought to be value-laden’ (YouTube, 17:00) .
• Zigon, J. and Throop, J. 2021. ‘ Phenomenology ‘ Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology .

Introduction to the Social Sciences Copyright © 2023 by The University of Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.4: Theoretical Perspectives

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 164427

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section you should be able to:

• Describe the ways that sociological theories are used to explain social institutions.
• Differentiate between functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns, and they develop theories to explain why things work as they do. In sociology, a theory is a way to explain different aspects of social interactions and to create a testable proposition, called a hypothesis , about society (Allan 2006).

For example, although suicide is generally considered an individual phenomenon, Émile Durkheim was interested in studying the social factors that affect it. He studied social solidarity , social ties within a group, and hypothesized that differences in suicide rates might be explained by religious differences. Durkheim gathered a large amount of data about Europeans and found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics. His work supports the utility of theory in sociological research.

Theories vary in scope depending on the scale of the issues that they are meant to explain. Macro-level theories relate to large-scale issues and large groups of people, while micro-level theories look at very specific relationships between individuals or small groups. Grand theories attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer fundamental questions such as why societies form and why they change. Sociological theory is constantly evolving and should never be considered complete. Classic sociological theories are still considered important and current, but new sociological theories build upon the work of their predecessors and add to them (Calhoun, 2002).

In sociology, a few theories provide broad perspectives that help explain many different aspects of social life, and these are called paradigms . Paradigms are philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them. Three paradigms have come to dominate sociological thinking because they provide useful explanations: structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Functionalism

Functionalism , also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and biologist, Herbert Spencer, who saw similarities between society and the human body. He argued that just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society functioning (Spencer, 1898). The parts of society that Spencer referred to were the social institutions , or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy.

Émile Durkheim applied Spencer’s theory to explain how societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex system of interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability (Durkheim, 1893), and that society is held together by shared values, languages, and symbols. He believed that to study society, a sociologist must look beyond individuals to social facts such as laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashion, and rituals, which all serve to govern social life (Durkheim, 1895). Alfred Radcliff-Brown (1881–1955) defined the function of any recurrent activity as the part it played in social life as a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability and continuity (Radcliff-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together to maintain stability, a state called dynamic equilibrium by later sociologists such as Parsons (1961).

Durkheim believed that individuals may make up society, but in order to study society, sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts. . Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behavior, while another is to preserve public health.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the unsought consequences of a social process. A manifest function of a college education, for example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained. Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions . In education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.

One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social change even though the functions are processes. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory: repetitive behavior patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they have a function only because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may continue, even though they don’t serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the basic premise of the theory. Many sociologists now believe that functionalism is no longer useful as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve a useful purpose in some mid-level analyses.

Big Picture

A global culture.

Sociologists around the world look closely for signs of what would be an unprecedented event: the emergence of a global culture. In the past, empires such as those that existed in China, Europe, Africa, and Central and South America linked people from many different countries, but those people rarely became part of a common culture. They lived too far from each other, spoke different languages, practiced different religions, and traded few goods. Today, increases in communication, travel, and trade have made the world a much smaller place. More and more people are able to communicate with each other instantly—wherever they are located—by telephone, video, and text. They share movies, television shows, music, games, and information over the Internet. Students can study with teachers and pupils from the other side of the globe. Governments find it harder to hide conditions inside their countries from the rest of the world.

Sociologists research many different aspects of this potential global culture. Some explore the dynamics involved in the social interactions of global online communities, such as when members feel a closer kinship to other group members than to people residing in their own countries. Other sociologists study the impact this growing international culture has on smaller, less-powerful local cultures. Yet other researchers explore how international markets and the outsourcing of labor impact social inequalities. Sociology can play a key role in people’s abilities to understand the nature of this emerging global culture and how to respond to it.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources. This perspective is a macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx, who saw society as being made up of individuals in different social classes who must compete for social, material, and political resources such as food and housing, employment, education, and leisure time. Social institutions like government, education, and religion reflect this competition in their inherent inequalities and help maintain the unequal social structure. Some individuals and organizations are able to obtain and keep more resources than others, and these “winners” use their power and influence to maintain social institutions. The perpetuation of power results in the perpetuation of oppression.

Several theorists suggested variations on this basic theme like Polish-Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) who expanded on Marx’s ideas by arguing that war and conquest are the bases of civilizations. He believed that cultural and ethnic conflicts led to states being identified and defined by a dominant group that had power over other groups (Irving, 2007).

German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) agreed with Marx but also believed that, in addition to economic inequalities, inequalities of political power and social structure cause conflict. Weber noted that different groups were affected differently based on education, race, and gender, and that people’s reactions to inequality were moderated by class differences and rates of social mobility, as well as by perceptions about the legitimacy of those in power. A reader of Marx, Georg Simmel believed that conflict can help integrate and stabilize a society. He said that the intensity of the conflict varies depending on the emotional involvement of the parties, the degree of solidarity within the opposing groups, and the clarity and limited nature of the goals. Simmel also showed that groups work to create internal solidarity, centralize power, and reduce dissent. The stronger the bond, the weaker the discord. Resolving conflicts can reduce tension and hostility and can pave the way for future agreements.

In the 1930s and 1940s, German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, developed critical theory as an elaboration on Marxist principles. Critical theory is an expansion of conflict theory and is broader than just sociology, incorporating other social sciences and philosophy. A critical theory is a holistic theory and attempts to address structural issues causing inequality. It must explain what’s wrong in current social reality, identify the people who can make changes, and provide practical goals for social transformation (Horkeimer, 1982).

More recently, inequality based on gender or race has been explained in a similar manner and has identified institutionalized power structures that help to maintain inequality between groups. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1941–2006) presented a model of feminist theory that attempts to explain the forces that maintain gender inequality as well as a theory of how such a system can be changed (Turner, 2003). Similarly, critical race theory grew out of a critical analysis of race and racism from a legal point of view. Critical race theory looks at structural inequality based on white privilege and associated wealth, power, and prestige.

Sociology in the Real World

Farming and locavores: how sociological perspectives might view food consumption.

The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence. Yet, it can also be associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group action, and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of society, our nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political issues, and economic debates. Any of these factors might become a topic of sociological study.

A structural-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might analyze the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has changed from the early days of manual-labor farming to modern mechanized production. Another might study the different functions of processes in food production, from farming and harvesting to flashy packaging and mass consumerism.

A conflict theorist might be interested in the power differentials present in the regulation of food, by exploring where people’s right to information intersects with corporations’ drive for profit and how the government mediates those interests. Or a conflict theorist might examine the power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming conglomerates, such as the documentary Food Inc., which depicts as resulting from Monsanto’s patenting of seed technology. Another topic of study might be how nutrition varies between different social classes.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would be more interested in microlevel topics, such as the symbolic use of food in religious rituals, or the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective might also explore the interactions among group members who identify themselves based on their sharing a particular diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or locavores (people who strive to eat locally produced food).

Just as structural functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of societies, conflict theory has been criticized because it tends to focus on conflict to the exclusion of recognizing stability. Many social structures are extremely stable or have gradually progressed over time rather than changing abruptly as conflict theory would suggest.

Symbolic Interactionist Theory

Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds. Theorists Herman and Reynolds (1994) note that this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon.

George Herbert Mead is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he never published his work on it (LaRossa and Reitzes, 1993). Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer (1900-1987), coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and outlined these basic premises: humans interact with things based on meanings ascribed to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes from our interactions with others and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person when dealing with things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). If you love books, for example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are good or important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church. Maybe your family had a special reading time each week, getting your library card was treated as a special event, or bedtime stories were associated with warmth and comfort.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message.

The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922-1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis . Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” He argued that individuals were actors in a play. We switched roles, sometimes minute to minute—for example, from student or daughter to dog walker. Because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, he or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds (Goffman, 1958).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society. This approach is often used to examine what’s defined as deviant within a society. There is no absolute definition of deviance, and different societies have constructed different meanings for deviance, as well as associating different behaviors with deviance.

One situation that illustrates this is what you believe you’re to do if you find a wallet in the street. In the United States, turning the wallet in to local authorities would be considered the appropriate action, and to keep the wallet would be seen as deviant. In contrast, many Eastern societies would consider it much more appropriate to keep the wallet and search for the owner yourself. Turning it over to someone else, even the authorities, would be considered deviant behavior.

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

Sociological Theory Today

These three approaches still provide the main foundation of modern sociological theory though they have evolved. Structural-functionalism was a dominant force after World War II and until the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, sociologists began to feel that structural-functionalism did not sufficiently explain the rapid social changes happening in the United States at that time. The women’s movement and the Civil Rights movement forced academics to develop approaches to study these emerging social practices.

Conflict theory then gained prominence, with its emphasis on institutionalized social inequality. Critical theory, and the particular aspects of feminist theory and critical race theory, focused on creating social change through the application of sociological principles. The field saw a renewed emphasis on helping ordinary people understand sociology principles, in the form of public sociology.

Gaining prominence in the wake of Mead’s work in the 1920s and 1930s, symbolic interactionism declined in influence during the 1960s and 1970s only to be revitalized at the turn of the twenty-first century (Stryker, 1987). Postmodern social theory developed in the 1980s to look at society through an entirely new lens by rejecting previous macro-level attempts to explain social phenomena. Its growth in popularity coincides with the rise of constructivist views of symbolic interactionism.

WashU Libraries

Conducting research.

• The Process
• Step 1: Exploring an idea
• Step 2: Finding background info.
• Step 3: Gathering more info.
• Get it This link opens in a new window
• Step 5: Evaluating your sources
• Step 6: Citing your sources
• FAQs This link opens in a new window
• Library Vocabulary
• Research in the Humanities

Researching in the Social Sciences

Conducting the literature review.

• Research in the Sciences

Recommended Research Guides

• A Guide to African and African-American Studies by Rudolph Clay Last Updated Apr 4, 2024 313 views this year
• A Guide to Anthropology Research by Ted Chaffin Last Updated Mar 22, 2024 136 views this year
• A Guide to Archaeology Research by Ted Chaffin Last Updated Dec 1, 2023 32 views this year
• A Guide to Economics Resources by Felicia Fulks Last Updated Apr 11, 2024 323 views this year
• A Guide to Education Resources by Cheryl Holland Last Updated Dec 5, 2023 104 views this year
• A Guide to Linguistics Resources by Lino Mioni Last Updated Apr 11, 2024 151 views this year
• A Guide to Political Science Resources by Cheryl Holland Last Updated Apr 11, 2024 170 views this year
• A Guide to Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology (PNP) Resources by Sam Lindgren Last Updated Apr 4, 2024 303 views this year
• A Guide to Psychology Resources by Ted Chaffin Last Updated Mar 26, 2024 334 views this year
• A Guide to Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies by AJ Robinson Last Updated Apr 1, 2024 187 views this year
• Urban Studies by Rudolph Clay Last Updated Mar 22, 2024 148 views this year

Social scientists interpret and analyze human behavior, generally using empirical methods of research. Though original data gathering and analysis are central to social sciences research, researchers also use library and Web sources to--

• obtain raw data for model building or analysis
• locate information about a particular model, theory, or methodology to be used in a research project
• review the literature to place new research in context

Subjects of study in the social sciences are often interdisciplinary, so your searching will likely need to be, as well.  A review of the literature for a social sciences research project not only should identify what research has been done but also compare and contrast the available information and evaluate its significance. 

Each of the social sciences has a well-developed set of research tools to  help you find relevant material. Some of the University Libraries Research Guides listed on the left may give you ideas for beginning your research.  You should also consult your subject librarian for help getting started or refining your search.

Types of sources

Primary sources are original material, created at the time of the event or by the subject you are studying. They may include statistics, survey and poll data, field notes, transcripts, photographs, and many other examples. This kind of material is the closest you can get to your actual subject, raw and unfiltered by later scholars and critics.

Secondary sources are works that analyze primary sources or other secondary sources. These include journal articles, monographs about a subject or person, and critical reviews. All of these can also act as primary sources, depending upon your subject of research.

Tertiary sources index or otherwise collect primary and secondary sources. Examples are encyclopedias, bibliographies, dictionaries, and online indicies.  These sources tend to be most useful as jumping off points for your research, leading you to the more in-depth secondary and primary material that you will need to conduct a thorough study.

The literature review is an important part of researching in the social sciences. Research and the literature review in particular are cyclical processes.   Where do I start? The Research Question Begin with what you know: What are the parameters of your research area? Do you have any particular interests in a relevant topic? Has something you've read or talked about in a class caught your attention?   Brainstorm some keywords you know are related to your topic, and start searching. Do a search in a few of the Search Resources boxes on the Libraries' Website and see what comes up. Scan titles. Do a Google Scholar search. Read an encyclopedia article. Get as much background information as you can, taking note of the most important people, places, ideas, events. As you read, take notes-- these will be the building blocks of your future searches.   It's probable your question will change over the course of your reading and research. No worries! If you're unsure about your topic, check with your faculty mentor.   Some tips Throw out a wide net and read, read, read. Consider the number and kinds of sources you'll need. Which citation style should you use? What time period should it cover? Is currency important? What do you need to be aware of related to scholarly versus popular materials?

• Read widely but selectively.
• Follow the citation trail -- building on previous research by reviewing bibliographies of articles and books that are close to your interest.
• Synthesize previous research on the topic.
• Aim to include both summary and synthesis.
• Focus on ways to have the body of literature tell its own story. Do not add your own interpretations at this point.
• Look for patterns and find ways of tying the pieces together.

Where should I look?

• Databases, journals, books
• Review articles
• Organizations

How do I know I am done? One key factor in knowing you are done is that you keep running into the same articles and materials. With no new information being uncovered you can assume you've exhausted your current search and should modify search terms, or perhaps you have reached a point of exhaustion with the available research. How do I organize my literature review?

• Identify the organizational structure you want to use: chronologically, thematically, or methodologically.
• Start writing: let the literature tell the story, find the best examples, summarize instead of quote, synthesize by rephrasing (but cite!) in context of your work.

Additional information available @ The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It (University of Toronto)

• << Previous: Research in the Humanities
• Next: Research in the Sciences >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wustl.edu/research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 Theories in scientific research

As we know from previous chapters, science is knowledge represented as a collection of ‘theories’ derived using the scientific method. In this chapter, we will examine what a theory is, why we need theories in research, the building blocks of a theory, how to evaluate theories, how can we apply theories in research, and also present illustrative examples of five theories frequently used in social science research.

Theories are explanations of a natural or social behaviour, event, or phenomenon. More formally, a scientific theory is a system of constructs (concepts) and propositions (relationships between those constructs) that collectively presents a logical, systematic, and coherent explanation of a phenomenon of interest within some assumptions and boundary conditions (Bacharach 1989). [1]

Theories should explain why things happen, rather than just describe or predict. Note that it is possible to predict events or behaviours using a set of predictors, without necessarily explaining why such events are taking place. For instance, market analysts predict fluctuations in the stock market based on market announcements, earnings reports of major companies, and new data from the Federal Reserve and other agencies, based on previously observed correlations . Prediction requires only correlations. In contrast, explanations require causations , or understanding of cause-effect relationships. Establishing causation requires three conditions: one, correlations between two constructs, two, temporal precedence (the cause must precede the effect in time), and three, rejection of alternative hypotheses (through testing). Scientific theories are different from theological, philosophical, or other explanations in that scientific theories can be empirically tested using scientific methods.

Explanations can be idiographic or nomothetic. Idiographic explanations are those that explain a single situation or event in idiosyncratic detail. For example, you did poorly on an exam because: you forgot that you had an exam on that day, you arrived late to the exam due to a traffic jam, you panicked midway through the exam, you had to work late the previous evening and could not study for the exam, or even your dog ate your textbook. The explanations may be detailed, accurate, and valid, but they may not apply to other similar situations, even involving the same person, and are hence not generalisable. In contrast, nomothetic explanations seek to explain a class of situations or events rather than a specific situation or event. For example, students who do poorly in exams do so because they did not spend adequate time preparing for exams or because they suffer from nervousness, attention-deficit, or some other medical disorder. Because nomothetic explanations are designed to be generalisable across situations, events, or people, they tend to be less precise, less complete, and less detailed. However, they explain economically, using only a few explanatory variables. Because theories are also intended to serve as generalised explanations for patterns of events, behaviours, or phenomena, theoretical explanations are generally nomothetic in nature.

While understanding theories, it is also important to understand what theories are not. A theory is not data, facts, typologies, taxonomies, or empirical findings. A collection of facts is not a theory, just as a pile of stones is not a house. Likewise, a collection of constructs (e.g., a typology of constructs) is not a theory, because theories must go well beyond constructs to include propositions, explanations, and boundary conditions. Data, facts, and findings operate at the empirical or observational level, while theories operate at a conceptual level and are based on logic rather than observations.

There are many benefits to using theories in research. First, theories provide the underlying logic for the occurrence of natural or social phenomena by explaining the key drivers and outcomes of the target phenomenon, and the underlying processes responsible for driving that phenomenon. Second, they aid in sense-making by helping us synthesise prior empirical findings within a theoretical framework and reconcile contradictory findings by discovering contingent factors influencing the relationship between two constructs in different studies. Third, theories provide guidance for future research by helping identify constructs and relationships that are worthy of further research. Fourth, theories can contribute to cumulative knowledge building by bridging gaps between other theories and by causing existing theories to be re-evaluated in a new light.

However, theories can also have their own share of limitations. As simplified explanations of reality, theories may not always provide adequate explanations of the phenomenon of interest based on a limited set of constructs and relationships. Theories are designed to be simple and parsimonious explanations, while reality may be significantly more complex. Furthermore, theories may impose blinders or limit researchers’ ‘range of vision’, causing them to miss out on important concepts that are not defined by the theory.

Building blocks of a theory

David Whetten (1989) [2] suggests that there are four building blocks of a theory: constructs, propositions, logic, and boundary conditions/assumptions. Constructs capture the ‘what’ of theories (i.e., what concepts are important for explaining a phenomenon?), propositions capture the ‘how’ (i.e., how are these concepts related to each other?), logic represents the ‘why’ (i.e., why are these concepts related?), and boundary conditions/assumptions examines the ‘who, when, and where’ (i.e., under what circumstances will these concepts and relationships work?). Though constructs and propositions were previously discussed in Chapter 2, we describe them again here for the sake of completeness.

Constructs are abstract concepts specified at a high level of abstraction that are chosen specifically to explain the phenomenon of interest. Recall from Chapter 2 that constructs may be unidimensional (i.e., embody a single concept), such as weight or age, or multi-dimensional (i.e., embody multiple underlying concepts), such as personality or culture. While some constructs, such as age, education, and firm size, are easy to understand, others, such as creativity, prejudice, and organisational agility, may be more complex and abstruse, and still others such as trust, attitude, and learning may represent temporal tendencies rather than steady states. Nevertheless, all constructs must have clear and unambiguous operational definitions that should specify exactly how the construct will be measured and at what level of analysis (individual, group, organisational, etc.). Measurable representations of abstract constructs are called variables . For instance, IQ score is a variable that is purported to measure an abstract construct called ‘intelligence’. As noted earlier, scientific research proceeds along two planes: a theoretical plane and an empirical plane. Constructs are conceptualised at the theoretical plane, while variables are operationalised and measured at the empirical (observational) plane. Furthermore, variables may be independent, dependent, mediating, or moderating, as discussed in Chapter 2. The distinction between constructs (conceptualised at the theoretical level) and variables (measured at the empirical level) is shown in Figure 4.1.

Propositions are associations postulated between constructs based on deductive logic. Propositions are stated in declarative form and should ideally indicate a cause-effect relationship (e.g., if X occurs, then Y will follow). Note that propositions may be conjectural but must be testable, and should be rejected if they are not supported by empirical observations. However, like constructs, propositions are stated at the theoretical level, and they can only be tested by examining the corresponding relationship between measurable variables of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, are called hypotheses . The distinction between propositions (formulated at the theoretical level) and hypotheses (tested at the empirical level) is depicted in Figure 4.1.

The third building block of a theory is the logic that provides the basis for justifying the propositions as postulated. Logic acts like a ‘glue’ that connects the theoretical constructs and provides meaning and relevance to the relationships between these constructs. Logic also represents the ‘explanation’ that lies at the core of a theory. Without logic, propositions will be ad hoc, arbitrary, and meaningless, and cannot be tied into the cohesive ‘system of propositions’ that is the heart of any theory.

Finally, all theories are constrained by assumptions about values, time, and space, and boundary conditions that govern where the theory can be applied and where it cannot be applied. For example, many economic theories assume that human beings are rational (or boundedly rational) and employ utility maximisation based on cost and benefit expectations as a way of understand human behaviour. In contrast, political science theories assume that people are more political than rational, and try to position themselves in their professional or personal environment in a way that maximises their power and control over others. Given the nature of their underlying assumptions, economic and political theories are not directly comparable, and researchers should not use economic theories if their objective is to understand the power structure or its evolution in an organisation. Likewise, theories may have implicit cultural assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to individualistic or collective cultures), temporal assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to early stages or later stages of human behaviour), and spatial assumptions (e.g., whether they apply to certain localities but not to others). If a theory is to be properly used or tested, all of the implicit assumptions that form the boundaries of that theory must be properly understood. Unfortunately, theorists rarely state their implicit assumptions clearly, which leads to frequent misapplications of theories to problem situations in research.

Attributes of a good theory

Theories are simplified and often partial explanations of complex social reality. As such, there can be good explanations or poor explanations, and consequently, there can be good theories or poor theories. How can we evaluate the ‘goodness’ of a given theory? Different criteria have been proposed by different researchers, the more important of which are listed below:

Logical consistency: Are the theoretical constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, and assumptions logically consistent with each other? If some of these ‘building blocks’ of a theory are inconsistent with each other (e.g., a theory assumes rationality, but some constructs represent non-rational concepts), then the theory is a poor theory.

Explanatory power: How much does a given theory explain (or predict) reality? Good theories obviously explain the target phenomenon better than rival theories, as often measured by variance explained (R-squared) value in regression equations.

Falsifiability: British philosopher Karl Popper stated in the 1940s that for theories to be valid, they must be falsifiable. Falsifiability ensures that the theory is potentially disprovable, if empirical data does not match with theoretical propositions, which allows for their empirical testing by researchers. In other words, theories cannot be theories unless they can be empirically testable. Tautological statements, such as ‘a day with high temperatures is a hot day’ are not empirically testable because a hot day is defined (and measured) as a day with high temperatures, and hence, such statements cannot be viewed as a theoretical proposition. Falsifiability requires the presence of rival explanations, it ensures that the constructs are adequately measurable, and so forth. However, note that saying that a theory is falsifiable is not the same as saying that a theory should be falsified. If a theory is indeed falsified based on empirical evidence, then it was probably a poor theory to begin with.

Parsimony: Parsimony examines how much of a phenomenon is explained with how few variables. The concept is attributed to fourteenth century English logician Father William of Ockham (and hence called ‘Ockham’s razor’ or ‘Occam’s razor’), which states that among competing explanations that sufficiently explain the observed evidence, the simplest theory (i.e., one that uses the smallest number of variables or makes the fewest assumptions) is the best. Explanation of a complex social phenomenon can always be increased by adding more and more constructs. However, such an approach defeats the purpose of having a theory, which is intended to be a ‘simplified’ and generalisable explanation of reality. Parsimony relates to the degrees of freedom in a given theory. Parsimonious theories have higher degrees of freedom, which allow them to be more easily generalised to other contexts, settings, and populations.

Approaches to theorising

How do researchers build theories? Steinfeld and Fulk (1990) [3] recommend four such approaches. The first approach is to build theories inductively based on observed patterns of events or behaviours. Such an approach is often called ‘grounded theory building’, because the theory is grounded in empirical observations. This technique is heavily dependent on the observational and interpretive abilities of the researcher, and the resulting theory may be subjective and non-confirmable. Furthermore, observing certain patterns of events will not necessarily make a theory, unless the researcher is able to provide consistent explanations for the observed patterns. We will discuss the grounded theory approach in a later chapter on qualitative research.

The second approach to theory building is to conduct a bottom-up conceptual analysis to identify different sets of predictors relevant to the phenomenon of interest using a predefined framework. One such framework may be a simple input-process-output framework, where the researcher may look for different categories of inputs, such as individual, organisational, and/or technological factors potentially related to the phenomenon of interest (the output), and describe the underlying processes that link these factors to the target phenomenon. This is also an inductive approach that relies heavily on the inductive abilities of the researcher, and interpretation may be biased by researcher’s prior knowledge of the phenomenon being studied.

The third approach to theorising is to extend or modify existing theories to explain a new context, such as by extending theories of individual learning to explain organisational learning. While making such an extension, certain concepts, propositions, and/or boundary conditions of the old theory may be retained and others modified to fit the new context. This deductive approach leverages the rich inventory of social science theories developed by prior theoreticians, and is an efficient way of building new theories by expanding on existing ones.

The fourth approach is to apply existing theories in entirely new contexts by drawing upon the structural similarities between the two contexts. This approach relies on reasoning by analogy, and is probably the most creative way of theorising using a deductive approach. For instance, Markus (1987) [4] used analogic similarities between a nuclear explosion and uncontrolled growth of networks or network-based businesses to propose a critical mass theory of network growth. Just as a nuclear explosion requires a critical mass of radioactive material to sustain a nuclear explosion, Markus suggested that a network requires a critical mass of users to sustain its growth, and without such critical mass, users may leave the network, causing an eventual demise of the network.

Examples of social science theories

In this section, we present brief overviews of a few illustrative theories from different social science disciplines. These theories explain different types of social behaviors, using a set of constructs, propositions, boundary conditions, assumptions, and underlying logic. Note that the following represents just a simplistic introduction to these theories. Readers are advised to consult the original sources of these theories for more details and insights on each theory.

Agency theory. Agency theory (also called principal-agent theory), a classic theory in the organisational economics literature, was originally proposed by Ross (1973) [5] to explain two-party relationships—such as those between an employer and its employees, between organisational executives and shareholders, and between buyers and sellers—whose goals are not congruent with each other. The goal of agency theory is to specify optimal contracts and the conditions under which such contracts may help minimise the effect of goal incongruence. The core assumptions of this theory are that human beings are self-interested individuals, boundedly rational, and risk-averse, and the theory can be applied at the individual or organisational level.

The two parties in this theory are the principal and the agent—the principal employs the agent to perform certain tasks on its behalf. While the principal’s goal is quick and effective completion of the assigned task, the agent’s goal may be working at its own pace, avoiding risks, and seeking self-interest—such as personal pay—over corporate interests, hence, the goal incongruence. Compounding the nature of the problem may be information asymmetry problems caused by the principal’s inability to adequately observe the agent’s behaviour or accurately evaluate the agent’s skill sets. Such asymmetry may lead to agency problems where the agent may not put forth the effort needed to get the task done (the moral hazard problem) or may misrepresent its expertise or skills to get the job but not perform as expected (the adverse selection problem). Typical contracts that are behaviour-based, such as a monthly salary, cannot overcome these problems. Hence, agency theory recommends using outcome-based contracts, such as commissions or a fee payable upon task completion, or mixed contracts that combine behaviour-based and outcome-based incentives. An employee stock option plan is an example of an outcome-based contract, while employee pay is a behaviour-based contract. Agency theory also recommends tools that principals may employ to improve the efficacy of behaviour-based contracts, such as investing in monitoring mechanisms—e.g. hiring supervisors—to counter the information asymmetry caused by moral hazard, designing renewable contracts contingent on the agent’s performance (performance assessment makes the contract partially outcome-based), or by improving the structure of the assigned task to make it more programmable and therefore more observable.

Theory of planned behaviour. Postulated by Azjen (1991), [6] the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is a generalised theory of human behaviour in social psychology literature that can be used to study a wide range of individual behaviours. It presumes that individual behaviour represents conscious reasoned choice, and is shaped by cognitive thinking and social pressures. The theory postulates that behaviours are based on one’s intention regarding that behaviour, which in turn is a function of the person’s attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norm regarding that behaviour, and perception of control over that behaviour (see Figure 4.2). Attitude is defined as the individual’s overall positive or negative feelings about performing the behaviour in question, which may be assessed as a summation of one’s beliefs regarding the different consequences of that behaviour, weighted by the desirability of those consequences. Subjective norm refers to one’s perception of whether people important to that person expect the person to perform the intended behaviour, and is represented as a weighted combination of the expected norms of different referent groups such as friends, colleagues, or supervisors at work. Behavioural control is one’s perception of internal or external controls constraining the behaviour in question. Internal controls may include the person’s ability to perform the intended behaviour (self-efficacy), while external control refers to the availability of external resources needed to perform that behaviour (facilitating conditions). TPB also suggests that sometimes people may intend to perform a given behaviour but lack the resources needed to do so, and therefore posits that behavioural control can have a direct effect on behaviour, in addition to the indirect effect mediated by intention.

TPB is an extension of an earlier theory called the theory of reasoned action, which included attitude and subjective norm as key drivers of intention, but not behavioural control. The latter construct was added by Ajzen in TPB to account for circumstances when people may have incomplete control over their own behaviours (such as not having high-speed Internet access for web surfing).

Innovation diffusion theory. Innovation diffusion theory (IDT) is a seminal theory in the communications literature that explains how innovations are adopted within a population of potential adopters. The concept was first studied by French sociologist Gabriel Tarde, but the theory was developed by Everett Rogers in 1962 based on observations of 508 diffusion studies. The four key elements in this theory are: innovation, communication channels, time, and social system. Innovations may include new technologies, new practices, or new ideas, and adopters may be individuals or organisations. At the macro (population) level, IDT views innovation diffusion as a process of communication where people in a social system learn about a new innovation and its potential benefits through communication channels—such as mass media or prior adopters— and are persuaded to adopt it. Diffusion is a temporal process—the diffusion process starts off slow among a few early adopters, then picks up speed as the innovation is adopted by the mainstream population, and finally slows down as the adopter population reaches saturation. The cumulative adoption pattern is therefore an s-shaped curve, as shown in Figure 4.3, and the adopter distribution represents a normal distribution. All adopters are not identical, and adopters can be classified into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards based on the time of their adoption. The rate of diffusion also depends on characteristics of the social system such as the presence of opinion leaders (experts whose opinions are valued by others) and change agents (people who influence others’ behaviours).

At the micro (adopter) level, Rogers (1995) [7] suggests that innovation adoption is a process consisting of five stages: one, knowledge : when adopters first learn about an innovation from mass-media or interpersonal channels, two, persuasion : when they are persuaded by prior adopters to try the innovation, three, decision : their decision to accept or reject the innovation, four,: their initial utilisation of the innovation, and five, confirmation : their decision to continue using it to its fullest potential (see Figure 4.4). Five innovation characteristics are presumed to shape adopters’ innovation adoption decisions: one, relative advantage : the expected benefits of an innovation relative to prior innovations, two, compatibility : the extent to which the innovation fits with the adopter’s work habits, beliefs, and values, three, complexity : the extent to which the innovation is difficult to learn and use, four, trialability : the extent to which the innovation can be tested on a trial basis, and five, observability : the extent to which the results of using the innovation can be clearly observed. The last two characteristics have since been dropped from many innovation studies. Complexity is negatively correlated to innovation adoption, while the other four factors are positively correlated. Innovation adoption also depends on personal factors such as the adopter’s risk-taking propensity, education level, cosmopolitanism, and communication influence. Early adopters are venturesome, well educated, and rely more on mass media for information about the innovation, while later adopters rely more on interpersonal sources—such as friends and family—as their primary source of information. IDT has been criticised for having a ‘pro-innovation bias’—that is for presuming that all innovations are beneficial and will be eventually diffused across the entire population, and because it does not allow for inefficient innovations such as fads or fashions to die off quickly without being adopted by the entire population or being replaced by better innovations.

Elaboration likelihood model . Developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986), [8] the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is a dual-process theory of attitude formation or change in psychology literature. It explains how individuals can be influenced to change their attitude toward a certain object, event, or behaviour and the relative efficacy of such change strategies. The ELM posits that one’s attitude may be shaped by two ‘routes’ of influence: the central route and the peripheral route, which differ in the amount of thoughtful information processing or ‘elaboration required of people (see Figure 4.5). The central route requires a person to think about issue-related arguments in an informational message and carefully scrutinise the merits and relevance of those arguments, before forming an informed judgment about the target object. In the peripheral route, subjects rely on external ‘cues’ such as number of prior users, endorsements from experts, or likeability of the endorser, rather than on the quality of arguments, in framing their attitude towards the target object. The latter route is less cognitively demanding, and the routes of attitude change are typically operationalised in the ELM using the argument quality and peripheral cues constructs respectively.

Whether people will be influenced by the central or peripheral routes depends upon their ability and motivation to elaborate the central merits of an argument. This ability and motivation to elaborate is called elaboration likelihood . People in a state of high elaboration likelihood (high ability and high motivation) are more likely to thoughtfully process the information presented and are therefore more influenced by argument quality, while those in the low elaboration likelihood state are more motivated by peripheral cues. Elaboration likelihood is a situational characteristic and not a personal trait. For instance, a doctor may employ the central route for diagnosing and treating a medical ailment (by virtue of his or her expertise of the subject), but may rely on peripheral cues from auto mechanics to understand the problems with his car. As such, the theory has widespread implications about how to enact attitude change toward new products or ideas and even social change.

General deterrence theory. Two utilitarian philosophers of the eighteenth century, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, formulated general deterrence theory (GDT) as both an explanation of crime and a method for reducing it. GDT examines why certain individuals engage in deviant, anti-social, or criminal behaviours. This theory holds that people are fundamentally rational (for both conforming and deviant behaviours), and that they freely choose deviant behaviours based on a rational cost-benefit calculation. Because people naturally choose utility-maximising behaviours, deviant choices that engender personal gain or pleasure can be controlled by increasing the costs of such behaviours in the form of punishments (countermeasures) as well as increasing the probability of apprehension. Swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishments are the key constructs in GDT.

While classical positivist research in criminology seeks generalised causes of criminal behaviours, such as poverty, lack of education, psychological conditions, and recommends strategies to rehabilitate criminals, such as by providing them job training and medical treatment, GDT focuses on the criminal decision-making process and situational factors that influence that process. Hence, a criminal’s personal situation—such as his personal values, his affluence, and his need for money—and the environmental context—such as how protected the target is, how efficient the local police are, how likely criminals are to be apprehended—play key roles in this decision-making process. The focus of GDT is not how to rehabilitate criminals and avert future criminal behaviours, but how to make criminal activities less attractive and therefore prevent crimes. To that end, ‘target hardening’ such as installing deadbolts and building self-defence skills, legal deterrents such as eliminating parole for certain crimes, ‘three strikes law’ (mandatory incarceration for three offences, even if the offences are minor and not worth imprisonment), and the death penalty, increasing the chances of apprehension using means such as neighbourhood watch programs, special task forces on drugs or gang-related crimes, and increased police patrols, and educational programs such as highly visible notices such as ‘Trespassers will be prosecuted’ are effective in preventing crimes. This theory has interesting implications not only for traditional crimes, but also for contemporary white-collar crimes such as insider trading, software piracy, and illegal sharing of music.

• Bacharach, S.B. (1989). Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review , 14(4), 496-515. ↵
• Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review , 14(4), 490-495. ↵
• Steinfield, C.W. and Fulk, J. (1990). The theory imperative. In J. Fulk & C.W. (Eds.), Organizations and communications technology (pp. 13–26). Newsburt Park, CA: Sage Publications. ↵
• Markus, M.L. (1987). Toward a ‘critical mass’ theory of interactive media: universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research , 14(5), 491-511. ↵
• Ross, S.A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic , 63(2), 134-139 ↵
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , (50), 179–211. ↵
• Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. ↵
• Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). C ommunication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change . New York: Springer-Verlag. ↵

Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices (Revised edition) Copyright © 2019 by Anol Bhattacherjee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Understanding different research perspectives

Introduction

In this free course, Understanding different research perspectives , you will explore the development of the research process and focus on the steps you need to follow in order to plan and design a HR research project.

The course comprises three parts:

• The first part (Sections 1 and 2) discusses the different perspectives from which an issue or phenomenon can be investigated and outlines how each of these perspectives generates different kinds of knowledge about the issue. It is thus concerned with what it means to ‘know’ in research terms.
• The second part (Sections 3 to 7) identifies the different elements (e.g. methodologies, ethics) of a business research project. In order to produce an effective project, these different elements need to be integrated into a research strategy. The research strategy is your plan of action and will include choices regarding research perspectives and methodologies.
• The third part (Sections 8 to 10) highlights the main methodologies that can be used to investigate a business issue.

This overview of the research perspectives will enable you to take the first steps to develop a work-based project – namely, identifying a research problem and developing the research question(s) you want to investigate.

By the end of this course you should have developed a clear idea of what you want to investigate; in which context you want to do this (e.g. in your organisation, in another organisation, with workers from different organisations); and what are the specific questions you want to address.

This OpenLearn course is an adapted extract from the Open University course B865 Managing research in the workplace .

Learning outcomes

After studying this course, you should be able to:

understand the different perspectives from which a problem can be investigated

consider the researcher’s involvement in the research process as insider and/or outsider

reflect on the importance of ethical processes in research

understand the development of a research strategy and how this is translated into a research design

identify a research problem to be investigated.

1 Objective and subjective research perspectives

Research in social science requires the collection of data in order to understand a phenomenon. This can be done in a number of ways, and will depend on the state of existing knowledge of the topic area. The researcher can:

• Explore a little known issue. The researcher has an idea or has observed something and seeks to understand more about it (exploratory research).
• Connect ideas to understand the relationships between the different aspects of an issue, i.e. explain what is going on (explanatory research).
• Describe what is happening in more detail and expand the initial understanding (explicatory or descriptive research).

Exploratory research is often done through observation and other methods such as interviews or surveys that allow the researcher to gather preliminary information.

Explanatory research, on the other hand, generally tests hypotheses about cause and effect relationships. Hypotheses are statements developed by the researcher that will be tested during the research. The distinction between exploratory and explanatory research is linked to the distinction between inductive and deductive research. Explanatory research tends to be deductive and exploratory research tends to be inductive. This is not always the case but, for simplicity, we shall not explore the exceptions here.

Descriptive research may support an explanatory or exploratory study. On its own, descriptive research is not sufficient for an academic project. Academic research is aimed at progressing current knowledge.

The perspective taken by the researcher also depends on whether the researcher believes that there is an objective world out there that can be objectively known; for example, profit can be viewed as an objective measure of business performance. Alternatively the researcher may believe that concepts such as ‘culture’, ‘motivation’, ‘leadership’, ‘performance’ result from human categorisation of the world and that their ‘meaning’ can change depending on the circumstances. For example, performance can mean different things to different people. For one it may refer to a hard measure such as levels of sales. For another it may include good relationships with customers. According to this latter view, a researcher can only take a subjective perspective because the nature of these concepts is the result of human processes. Subjective research generally refers to the subjective experiences of research participants and to the fact that the researcher’s perspective is embedded within the research process, rather than seen as fully detached from it.

On the other hand, objective research claims to describe a true and correct reality, which is independent of those involved in the research process. Although this is a simplified view of the way in which research can be approached, it is an important distinction to think about. Whether you think about your research topic in objective or subjective terms will determine the development of the research questions, the type of data collected, the methods of data collection and analysis you adopt and the conclusions that you draw. This is why it is important to consider your own perspective when planning your project.

Subjective research is generally referred to as phenomenological research. This is because it is concerned with the study of experiences from the perspective of an individual, and emphasises the importance of personal perspectives and interpretations. Subjective research is generally based on data derived from observations of events as they take place or from unstructured or semi-structured interviews. In unstructured interviews the questions emerged from the discussion between the interviewer and the interviewee. In semi-structured interviews the interviewer prepares an outline of the interview topics or general questions, adding more as needs emerged during the interview. Structured interviews include the full list of questions. Interviewers do not deviate from this list. Subjective research can also be based on examinations of documents. The researcher will attribute personal interpretations of the experiences and phenomena during the process of both collecting and analysing data. This approach is also referred to as interpretivist research. Interpretivists believe that in order to understand and explain specific management and HR situations, one needs to focus on the viewpoints, experiences, feelings and interpretations of the people involved in the specific situation.

Conversely, objective research tends to be modelled on the methods of the natural sciences such as experiments or large scale surveys. Objective research seeks to establish law-like generalisations which can be applied to the same phenomenon in different contexts. This perspective, which privileges objectivity, is called positivism and is based on data that can be subject to statistical analysis and generalisation. Positivist researchers use quantitative methodologies, which are based on measurement and numbers, to collect and analyse data. Interpretivists are more concerned with language and other forms of qualitative data, which are based on words or images. Having said that, researchers using objectivist and positivist assumptions sometimes use qualitative data while interpretivists sometimes use quantitative data. (Quantitative and qualitative methodologies will be discussed in more detail in the final part of this course.) The key is to understand the perspective you intend to adopt and realise the limitations and opportunities it offers. Table 1 compares and contrasts the perspectives of positivism and interpretivism.

Some textbooks include the realist perspective or discuss constructivism, but, for the purpose of your work-based project, you do not need to engage with these other perspectives. This course keeps the discussion of research perspectives to a basic level.

Search and identify two articles that are based on your research topic. Ideally you may want to identify one article based on quantitative and one based on qualitative methodologies.

Now answer the following questions:

• In what ways are the two studies different (excluding the research focus)?
• Which research perspective do the author/s in article 1 take in their study (i.e. subjective or objective or in other words, phenomenological/interpretivist or positivist)?
• What elements (e.g. specific words, sentences, research questions) in the introduction reveal the approach taken by the authors?
• Which research perspective do the author/s in article 2 take in their study (i.e. subjective or objective, phenomenological/interpretivist or positivist)?
• What elements (e.g. specific words, sentences, research questions) in the introduction and research questions sections reveal the approach taken by the authors?

This activity has helped you to distinguish between objective and subjective research by recognising the type of language and the different ways in which objectivists/positivists and subjectivists/interpretivists may formulate their research aims. It should also support the development of your personal preference on objective or subjective research.

2 The researcher as an outsider or an insider

The researcher’s perspective is not only related to philosophical questions of subjectivity and objectivity but also to the researcher’s position with respect to the subject researched. This is particularly relevant for work-based projects where researchers are looking at their own organisation, group or community. In relation to the researcher’s position, s/he can be an insider or an outsider. Here the term ‘insider’ will include the semi-insider position, and the term ‘outsider’ will include the semi-outsider position. If you belong to the group you want to study, you become an ‘insider-researcher’. For example, if you want to conduct your research project with HR managers and you are a HR manager yourself you will have a common language and a common understanding of the issues associated with doing the same job. While, on one hand, the insider perspective allows special sensitivity, empathy and understanding of the matters, which may not be so clear to an outsider, it may also lead to greater bias or to a research direction that is more important to the researcher. On the other hand, an outsider-researcher would be more detached, less personal, but also less well-informed.

Rabe (2003) suggests that once outsider and insider perspectives in research are examined, three concepts can lead to a better understanding. First, the outsider and insider can be understood by considering the concept of power : there is power involved in the relationship between the researcher and the people and organisations participating in the research. As researchers are gathering data from the research participants, they have the power to represent those participants in any way they choose. The research participants have less power, although they can choose what to say to the researchers. This has different implications for insiders and outsiders. It is obvious that in the case of work-based projects conducted in your organisation, the ways in which you choose to represent your colleagues and your organisation places you in a position of power.

Second, insider and outsider perspectives can be understood in the context of knowledge : the insider has inside knowledge that the outsider does not have. If you conduct research in your organisation, institution or profession you will have access to inside knowledge that an outsider will not be able to gain.

The third way in which the insider/outsider concept can be understood is by considering the role of the researcher in the field of anthropology . In fact, anthropologists approach those being studied (e.g. remote cultures, tribes, social groups) as outsiders. As researchers experience the life of those studied by living with them, they acquire an insider’s perspective. The goal is to obtain both insider and outsider knowledge and to maintain the appropriate detachment. This approach applies to participatory research in general, not only anthropology.

Figure 1 reports the various stages you are expected to follow in order to complete and write up your research report.

3 Deciding what to research

Selecting an appropriate research topic is the first step towards a satisfactory project. For some people, choosing the topic is easy because they have a very specific interest in an area. For example, you might be interested in studying training and development systems in multinational companies (MNCs), or you might have a pressing work issue you want to address, like why the career progression of women in the construction industry is slower than that of men in the same industry. Alternatively, your sponsoring organisation might like you to carry out a specific project that will benefit the organisation itself, for example, it might need a specific HR policy to be developed.

While you may be among those who already have clear ideas, for other learners the process of choosing the research topic can be daunting and frustrating. So how can you generate research ideas? Where should you start? It is easiest to start from your organisational context, if you are currently in employment or if you are volunteering. Is there anything that is bothering you, your colleagues or your department? Is there a HR issue that could be addressed or further developed? Talking about your project with colleagues and family may also help as they may have suggestions that you have not considered.

The following case study describes a process that might help you to identify opportunities in your daily activities that could lead to a suitable topic.

Lucy works as a HR assistant manager for a large manufacturer of confectionery that operates at a national level. The company has three factories and a head office. While the company has a centralised HR function based at the head office, Lucy is based at one of the factories (the largest of the three) that employs 176 workers. The HR department at the factory comprises three HR experts: the manager and two assistants. Their focus is mainly concerned with the training and development of the on-site staff, with the recruitment of factory workers, grievances, disciplinary and day-to-day HR management. It excludes general issues such as salaries, benefits, pensions, recruitment and development of managerial staff and more centralised aspects that are managed by the HR function at head office level.

For some time, Lucy has received feedback through the appraisal system and exit interviews that shop floor workers are dissatisfied by the lack of progression to supervisory level positions within the company. In fact, the company had no career progression plans nor a structured assessment of training needs for factory workers, who make up the majority of employees. Training was provided on-site by supervisors, managers and HR managers and off-site by external consultants when a specific skill or knowledge was needed. Equally employees could request to attend a course by choosing from a list of courses provided on a yearly basis. However, although the company was keen for employees to attend training courses, these were not systematically recorded on the employee file nor did they fit in a wider career plan.

Lucy is doing a part-time postgraduate diploma in HRM at The Open University and she has to complete a research project in order to gain CIPD membership. She has fully considered this issue and thought that it could become a good project. It did not come to her mind immediately but was the result of talks with her HR colleagues and her partner who helped her to see an opportunity where she could not see it.

Lucy talked to supervisors and factory workers and she analysed the organisational documents (appraisal records and exit interview records). Having searched the literature on blue-collar worker career development and training she compiled a loose structure (semi-structured) for interviews to be conducted with shop floor employees. At the end of her course she submitted a project which included the development of an online programme that managed a record system for each employee. The system brought together all the training courses completed as well as the performance records of each employee. It became much easier for managers and supervisors to identify the training courses attended by each employee as well as future training needs.

When people are employed in a job, or on a placement, and are undertaking research in the employing organisation they can be defined as (insider) practitioner–researchers. While the position of insider brings advantages in terms of knowledge and access to information and resources, there may be political issues to consider in undertaking and writing up the project. For example, a controversial or sensitive issue might emerge in the collection of data and the insider researcher has to consider carefully how to present it in their writing. Furthermore, while the organisation or some of its members may initially be willing to collaborate, resistance to full participation may be experienced during some stages of the project. If you are carrying out research in your own organisation it is therefore important to consider, in addition to its feasibility, any political issues likely to emerge and whether your status may affect the process of undertaking the research (Anderson, 2013).

Another way that can help you to identify a topic of investigation is through reading a HR magazine (such as People Management , Personnel Today or HR Magazine ), a journal article or even a newspaper. What topics do they include? Are you interested in any of them? Would the topic appeal to your organisation? Could it be developed into a feasible project?

If you develop an idea, however rudimentary, it is worth writing down the topic and a short sentence that captures some aspects of the topic. For example if the topic is ‘diversity in organisations’, you might want to write a note such as ‘relationship between diversity policy and practices’. From here you can start to develop a map of ideas that will help to identify keywords that can be used to do a more in-depth search of the literature. Figure 2 shows the first step in developing the idea.

The figure shows three general approaches that you might take in developing a research project on diversity in organisations. You may decide to focus on one of these aspects and you could brainstorm it and add elements such as relationships with the various other aspects, national and organisational context, organisational sector, legislation, and aspects of diversity (e.g. age, gender, sexuality, race, etc.). Obviously this is an example but you can apply this process to any topic.

If you have an idea of a topic for your project, take five minutes to think about the possible perspectives from which it can be investigated. Having done this, take a sheet of paper and write the topic in the middle of the page. Alternatively, if you are still uncertain about the topic you want to investigate, you might want to think about the role of the HR practitioner and the various activities associated with this role. As you consider the various aspects of the role of HR practitioner, you may realise that one of these can become your chosen topic.

Starting from this core idea, now draw a mind map or a spider plan focusing on your chosen topic.

Mind mapping gives you a way to illustrate the various elements of an issue or topic and helps to clarify how these elements are linked to each other. A map is a good way to visualise, structure and organise ideas.

Now that you have identified your research topic you can move on to work on the research focus. Activity 3 will help you with this.

Develop a research statement of approximately 600 words explaining your chosen topic, the research problem and how you are thinking of investigating it.

You could start by using the mind map you developed in Activity 2. If you wished, you could do some online research around your topic to get a clearer focus on your own project. You might also read a few sources such as newspaper or magazine articles that are particularly relevant to your topic. These sources may yield some additional aspects for you to investigate. If your topic has been widely researched, try not to feel overwhelmed by the amount of existing information. Focus on one or two articles that appear more closely related to your topic and try to identify the specific area you want to focus on.

Once you have researched the topic, consider the research problem and how this can be investigated. Would you need to interview specific people? Would a questionnaire be more appropriate if you need to access a large number of individuals? Would you need to observe work practices in a specific organisation?

Your statement is a draft research proposal and should include:

• an overview of the topic area with an explanation of why you think this needs to be researched
• the focus of the research and the problem it addresses (and possibly the research questions if you have a clear idea of them at this stage, however, this is not essential if you are still developing the focus of your research)
• how the problem can be investigated (i.e. questionnaire, interviews, secondary data).

You may want to show this proposal to colleagues and other contacts who may be interested in order to gain their feedback about the focus and feasibility.

There is no feedback on this activity.

The next section discusses the ethical issues that need to be considered when doing a research project.

4 Research ethics

Ethics is a fundamental aspect of research and of professional work. Ethics refers to the science of morals and rules of behaviour. It is concerned with the concept of right and wrong conduct in all stages of doing research. However, while the idea of right and wrong conduct may seem straightforward, on reflection you will realise how complex ethics is. Ethics is obviously applied to many aspects of life, not just research, and, in business, topics such as ethics and social responsibility and ethical trading are often brought to people’s attention by the media.

As the meaning of what is ethical behaviour is often subjective and may have controversial elements, think about the following questions and make some notes:

• What does ethics in research mean for you?
• Why is ethical behaviour important for you?
• Why should ethics matter in research?

Research ethics is concerned with the prevention of any harm which may occur during the course of research. This is particularly important if your research involves human participants. Harm refers to psychological as well as physical harm. Human rights and the law must be respected by researchers with regard to the safety and wellbeing of their participants at all times. Research ethics is also concerned with identifying high standards of research conduct and putting them into practice. Cameron and Price (2009) suggest that researcher conduct is guided by a number of different obligations:

• Legal obligations which apply not only to the country in which researchers conduct the project, but also where they collect and store data.
• Professional obligations which are established by professional bodies (e.g. British Psychological Society, The Law Society, CIPD) to guide the conduct of its members.
• Cultural obligations which refer to informal rules regulating the behaviours of people within the society in which they live.
• Personal obligations which include the behavioural choices that individuals make of their own will.

In planning and carrying out a research project researchers should consider their responsibilities to the participants and respondents, to those sponsoring the research, and to the wider research community (Cameron and Price, 2009, p. 121). Before embarking on a research project it is worth identifying all stakeholders and considering your responsibilities towards them.

Generally universities and professional bodies have a list of principles or a code of ethics conduct that governs the research process. The principles to be followed in conducting research with human participants, and which you must follow when collecting data for your research project, are outlined below:

• Informed consent : Potential participants should always be informed in advance, and in understandable terms, of any potential benefits, risks, inconvenience or obligations associated with the research that might reasonably be expected to influence their willingness to participate. This should normally involve the use of an information sheet about the research and what participation will involve, and a signed consent form. Sufficient time shall be allowed for a potential participant to consider their decision from receiving the information sheet to giving their consent. In the case of children (individuals under 16 years of age) informed consent should be given by parents or guardians. An incentive to participate (e.g. a prize or a small payment) should be offered only after consent has been given. Participants should be informed clearly that they have a right to withdraw their consent at any time, that any data that they have provided will be destroyed if they so request and that there will be no resultant adverse consequences.
• Openness and integrity : Researchers should be open and honest about the purpose and content of their research and behave in a professional manner at all times. Covert collection of data should only take place where it is essential to achieve the research results required, where the research objective has strong scientific merit and where there is an appropriate risk management and harm alleviation strategy. Participants should be given opportunities to access the outcomes of research in which they have participated and debriefed, if appropriate, after they have provided data.
• Protection from harm : Researchers must make every effort to minimise the risks of any harm, either physical or psychological. Researchers shall comply with the requirements of the UK Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and any other relevant legal frameworks governing the management of personal information in the UK or in any other country in which the research may be conducted. Where research involves children or other vulnerable groups, an appropriate level of disclosure should be obtained from the Disclosure and Barring Service for all researchers in contact with participants.
• Confidentiality : Except where explicit written consent is given, researchers should respect and preserve the confidentiality of participants’ identities and data at all times. The procedures by which this is to be achieved should be specified in the research protocol (an outline of the research topic and strategy).
• Professional codes of practice and ethics : Where the subject of a research project falls within the domain of a professional body with a published code of practice and ethical guidelines, researchers should explicitly state their intention to comply with the code and guidelines in the project protocol. Research within the UK NHS should always be conducted in compliance with an ethical protocol approved by the appropriate NHS Research Ethics Committee.

This guidance has been adapted from, and reflects the principles of, the Open University Research Ethics Guideline. The CIPD’s Code of Professional Conduct provides more information on professional standards in the field of HR.

Look at your research topic mind map and the research statement you wrote for Activity 3. Did you consider ethics? Regardless of whether or not you included ethics in your earlier outline of your research topic, consider what ethical factors could prevent you from conducting a research project on the chosen topic. Write your notes in the space provided below.

Describe at least two types of risks that could be encountered in HR research.

What is informed consent? What factors would you want to know before agreeing to participate in a research study? What should be included in an informed consent form?

This activity added the ethical dimension to the research topic, which was likely to be missed out in a previous outline of the project topic and aim(s). It also compels you to reflect on the specific ethical risks of HR research. There are risks associated with most HR research (e.g. stress can be induced by an interview or questionnaire questions) and it is important to consider them before finalising the research proposal. The activity also encouraged you to consider the elements that should be included in the informed consent form.

The next section considers the research question.

5 Developing research questions

By now you should have a clear direction for your research project. It is now necessary to think about the sorts of questions that you need to formulate in order to define your research project. Will they be ‘what’, ‘how’ or ‘why’ type questions? An important point to bear in mind, as discussed above, is that the wording of a question can be central in defining the scope and direction of the study, including the methodology. Your research question(s) do not necessarily have to be expressed as question(s); they can be statements of purpose. The research question is so called because it is a problem or issue that needs to be solved or addressed. Here are some examples of research questions that focus on different areas of HR. They are expressed as questions but they can easily be changed to research statements if the researcher prefers to present them in that way.

• How do the personal experiences and stories of career development processes among HR professionals in the UK and in Romania differ?
• To what extent do NHS managers engage with age diversity?
• How are organisational recruitment and selection practices influenced by the size of the organisation (e.g. small and medium-sized organisations, large national companies, multinational corporations)?
• In what ways, and for what reasons, does the internal perception of the organisational culture vary in relation to the culture that the organisation portrays in official documents?
• How are absenteeism levels linked to employees’ performance?

The process of producing clearly defined and focused research questions is likely to take some time. You will continue to tweak your research questions in the next few weeks even after you have written your research proposal, read the relevant literature and processed the information. The research questions above are very different but they also have common elements. The next activity invites you to think about research questions, both those in the examples above and your own, which may still be very tentative.

Make notes on the following questions:

• What constitutes a research question?
• What are the main pieces of information that a research question needs to contain?

This activity helped you to focus further on your research aims. What you wrote will guide you towards the development of your research questions. Figure 4 shows that research questions can contain a number of elements.

You should now note down possible research questions for your project. You might have only one question or possibly two. You do not need too many questions because you need to be realistic about what you can achieve in the project’s time frame. At the end of this course you will come back to your question(s) and finalise them.

6 Research strategy

A research strategy introduces the main components of a research project such as the research topic area and focus, the research perspective (see Sections 1 and 2), the research design, and the research methods (these are discussed below). It refers to how you propose to answer the research questions set and how you will implement the methodology.

In the first part of this course, you started to identify your research topic, to develop your research statement and you thought about possible research question(s). While you might already have clear research questions or objectives, it is possible that, at this stage, you are uncertain about the most appropriate strategy to implement in order to address those questions. This section looks briefly at a few research strategies you are likely to adopt.

Figure 5 shows the four main types of research strategy: case study, qualitative interviews, quantitative survey and action-oriented research. It is likely that you will use one of the first three; you are less likely to use action-oriented research.

Here is what each of these strategies entails:

• Case Study : This focuses on an in-depth investigation of a single case (e.g. one organisation) or a small number of cases. In case study research generally, information is sought from different sources and through the use of different types of data such as observations, survey, interviews and analysis of documents. Data can be qualitative, quantitative or a mix of both. Case study research allows a composite and multifaceted investigation of the issue or problem.
• Qualitative interviews : There are different types of qualitative interviews (e.g. structured, semi-structured, unstructured) and this is the most widely used method for gathering data. Interviews allow access to rich information. They require extensive planning concerning the development of the structure, decisions about who to interview and how, whether to conduct individual or group interviews, and how to record and analyse them. Interviewees need a wide range of skills, including good social skills, listening skills and communication skills. Interviews are also time-consuming to conduct and they are prone to problems and biases that need to be minimised during the design stage.
• Quantitative survey : This is a widely used method in business research and allows access to significantly high numbers of participants. The availability of online sites enables the wide and cheap distribution of surveys and the organisation of the responses. Although the development of questions may appear easy, to develop a meaningful questionnaire that allows the answering of research questions is difficult. Questionnaires need to appeal to respondents, cannot be too long, too intrusive or too difficult to understand. They also need to measure accurately the issue under investigation. For these reasons it is also advisable, when possible, to use questionnaires that are available on the market and have already been thoroughly validated. This is highly recommended for projects such as the one you need to carry out for this course. When using questionnaires decisions have to be made about the size of the sample and whether and when this is representative of the whole population studied. Surveys can be administered to the whole population (census), for example to all employees of a specific organisation.
• Action-oriented research : This refers to practical business research which is directed towards a change or the production of recommendations for change. Action-oriented research is a participatory process which brings together theory and practice, action and reflection. The project is often carried out by insiders. This is because it is grounded in the need to actively involve participants in order for them to develop ownership of the project. After the project, participants will have to implement the change.

Action-oriented research is not exactly action research, even though they are both grounded in the same assumptions (e.g. to produce change). Action research is a highly complex approach to research, reflection and change which is not always achievable in practice (Cameron and Price, 2009). Furthermore action researchers have to be highly skilled and it is unlikely that for this specific project you will be involved in action research. For these reasons this overview focuses on the less pure action-oriented research strategy. If you are interested in exploring this strategy and action research further, you might want to read Chapter 14 of Cameron and Price (2009).

It is possible for you to choose a strategy that includes the use of secondary data. Secondary data is data that has been collected by other people (e.g. employee surveys, market research data, census). Using secondary data for your research project needs to be justified in that it meets the requirements of the research questions. The use of secondary data has obvious benefits in terms of saving money and time. However, it is important to ascertain the quality of the data and how it was collected; for example, data collected by government agencies would be good quality but it may not necessary meet the needs of your project.

It is important to note that there should be consistency between the perspective (subjective or objective) and the methodology employed. This means that the type of strategy adopted needs to be coherent and that its various elements need to fit in with each other, whether the research is grounded on primary or secondary data.

Now watch this video clip in which Dr Rebecca Hewett, Prof Mark Saunders, Prof Gillian Symon and Prof David Guest discuss the importance of setting the right research question, what strategy they adopted to come up with specific research questions for their projects, and how they refined these initial research questions to focus their research.

Make notes on how you might apply some of these strategies to develop your own research question.

7 Research design

In planning your project you need to think about how you will design and conduct the study as well as how you will present and write up the findings. The design is highly dependent upon the research strategy. It refers to the practical choices regarding how the strategy is implemented in practice. You need to think about what type of data (evidence) would best address the research questions; for example, when considering case study research, questions of design will address the choice of the specific methods of data collection, e.g. if observation, what to observe and how to record it? For how long? Which department or work environment to observe? If interviews are chosen, you need to ask yourself what type? How many? With whom? How long should they be? How will I record them? Where will they be conducted?

The following list (adapted from Cameron and Price, 2009) shows some of the different types of data, or sources of evidence, available to draw on:

• observations
• conversations
• statistics (e.g. government)
• focus groups
• organisational records
• documents (e.g. organisational policies)
• secondary data.

8 Research methodology

The most important methodological choice researchers make is based on the distinction between qualitative and quantitative data. As mentioned previously, qualitative data takes the form of descriptions based on language or images, while quantitative data takes the form of numbers.

Qualitative data is richer and is generally grounded in a subjective and interpretivist perspective. However, while this is generally the case, it is not always so. Qualitative research supports an in-depth understanding of the situation investigated and, due to time constraints, it generally involves a small sample of participants. For this reason the findings are limited to the sample studied and cannot be generalised to other contexts or to the wider population. Popular methods based on qualitative data include semi-structured or unstructured interviews, participant observations and document analysis. Qualitative analysis is generally more time-consuming than quantitative analysis.

Quantitative data, on the other hand, might be easier to collect and analyse and it is based on a large sample of participants. Quantitative methods are based on data that can be ‘objectively’ measured with numbers. The data is analysed through numerical comparisons and statistical analysis. For this reason it appears more ‘scientific’ and may appeal to people who seek clear answers to specific causal questions. Quantitative analysis is often quicker to carry out as it involves the use of software. Owing to the large number of respondents it allows generalisation to a wider group than the research sample. Popular methods based on quantitative data include questionnaires and organisational statistical records among others.

The choice of which methodology to use will depend on your research questions, the formulation of which is consequently informed by your research perspective. Generally, unstructured or semi-structured interviews produce qualitative data and questionnaires produce quantitative data, but such a distinction is not always applicable. In fact, language-based data can often be translated into numbers; for example, by reporting the frequency of certain key words. Questionnaires can produce quantitative as well as qualitative data; for example, multiple choice questions produce quantitative data, while open questions produce qualitative data.

Go back to the two papers you started reading in Activity 1 and read the methodology sections (they may be called methods or something similar) of both papers.

Now answer the following questions.

• What type of method(s) have the author/s in article 1 used to collect data?
• What method of analysis have these author/s used?
• What type of method(s) have the author/s in article 2 used to collect data?
• What methods of analysis have these author/s used?
• How do you think the methods used in both papers address the initial research aims or questions?
• Why do you think the methods used in both papers are appropriate to address these initial research aims or questions?

If you have chosen two papers based on different methodologies, you should reflect on the link between the ways in which the purposes of the studies were developed and the specific methods that the authors chose to address those questions. In the articles there should be a fit between research questions and methodology for collecting and analysing the data. The activity should have helped you to familiarise yourself with processes of planning a research methodology that fits the research question.

This course so far has given you an overview of the research strategy, design and possible methodologies for collecting data. What you have learned should be enough for you to have developed a clear idea of the general research strategy you want to adopt before you move on to develop your methodology for collecting data and review the methods in detail so that you are clear about the benefits and limitations of each before you collect your data.

9 Further development of your research questions

Before you embark on collecting data for your project, it is necessary to have a clear and specific focus for your research – i.e. the research aim, purpose or question(s). Section 5 gave you some examples of research questions. As a research question does not necessarily need to be expressed as a question (it is called a question because it is a problem to be solved), a study can have one general research aim or question and a few secondary aims or questions. It may also have only one research aim or question. In the case of quantitative studies, a few hypotheses might be developed. These will emerge from gaps in the literature but would have to derive from, and be linked to, an overall research purpose. Section 10 discusses research hypotheses.

The clear development of one or more research questions will guide the development of your data collection process and the tool(s) or instrument(s) you will use. Your research question should emerge from a specific need to acquire greater knowledge about a phenomenon or a situation. Such need may be a personal one as well as a contextual and organisational need. Box 1 gives an example of this.

Box 1 An example of how to develop a research question

As a consequence of government cuts, your arts organisation has to re-structure and this is causing stress and tension among staff. You are involved in the planning of the change initiative and want to develop an organisational change programme that minimises stress and conflict. In order to do so you need to know more about people’s views, at the various organisational levels.

What type of questions would help you to:

• understand the context
• demonstrate to the various research stakeholders (e.g. organisational members and research participants or supervisor, etc.) what you intend to do.

Perhaps you would like to make some notes of your initial ideas and think about how you could apply this process to developing your own research question.

Reading around the topic will help you to achieve greater focus, as will discussing your initial questions with colleagues or supervisor. In the example above, assuming the literature has been searched and several articles on change management and business restructuring have been read, you are likely to have developed clearer ideas about what you want to investigate and how you want to investigate it. Figure 6 shows what the main research question and the sub-questions or objectives might be:

This example is very well developed and would constitute a much larger project than the work-based project you might be doing. However the development of a general question and more specific questions focusing on different aspects should give you an idea of the relationship between the main question and the sub-questions.

In developing your research questions you also need to be concerned with issues of feasibility in terms of access and time. You do not need to be over ambitious but you need to realistically evaluate how difficult it would be to get the data you are planning in the time you have available before submitting the project at the end of the course. You need to plan a project that is neither too broad nor too narrow in scope and one that can be carried out in the available time.

Revisit your research topic and look back at the notes you have made about the topic (including the mind map you developed earlier in the course). Expand and amend where you need to.

Now think about what you need to do to re-write your statement as a research question and write the question in the space provided below.

Write a maximum of four sub-questions or research objectives that will help you to answer the main research question given above. In formulating the sub-questions make sure you consider the scope and the feasibility of the project. Write your questions in the space provided below.

10 Research hypotheses

For quantitative studies a research question can be further focused into a hypothesis. This is not universally the case – especially in exploratory research when little is known and so it is difficult to develop hypotheses – however it is generally the case in explanatory projects. A hypothesis usually makes a short statement concerning the relationship between two or more aspects or variables; the research thus aims to verify the hypothesis through investigation. According to Verma and Beard (1981, p. 184) ‘in many cases hypotheses are hunches that the researcher has about the existence of relationships between variables’. A hypothesis differs from a research question in several ways. The main difference is that a question is specific and asks about the relationship between different aspects of a problem or issue, whereas a hypothesis suggests a possible answer to the problem, which can then be tested empirically. You will now see how a research question (RQ) may be formulated as a research hypothesis (RH).

• RQ: Does motivation affect employees’ performance?

This is a well-defined research question; it explores the contribution of motivation to the work performance of employees. The question omits other possible causes, such as organisational resources and market conditions. This question could be turned into a research hypothesis by simply changing the emphasis:

• RH: Work motivation is positively related to employees’ performance.

The key elements of a hypothesis are:

• The variables used in a hypothesis must all be empirically measurable (e.g. you need to be able to measure motivation and performance objectively).
• A hypothesis should provide an answer (albeit tentatively) to the question raised by the problem statement.
• A hypothesis should be as simple as possible.

If you are planning to do an explanatory quantitative study, you will need to develop hypotheses. You will develop your hypotheses once you have read and reviewed the literature and have become familiar with previous knowledge about the topic.

In this free course, Understanding different research perspectives , the various perspectives (subjective/objective and interpretivist/positivist) that a researcher can take in investigating a problem have been discussed, as well as the issues that need to be considered in planning the project (ethics, research design, research strategy and research methodology). This fits with the first two stages of the overall research process as shown in Table 2.

The activities in this course have guided you through these first two processes.

Acknowledgements

This free course was written by Cinzia Priola.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions ), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence .

The material acknowledged below is Proprietary and used under licence (not subject to Creative Commons Licence). Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this free course:

Course Image: © Kristian Sekulic/iStockphoto.com

Figure 2: © Yuri/iStockphoto.com

4. Research Ethics: CIPD’s Code of Professional Conduct: courtesy of Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)

7. Research and Design: extract adapted from: Cameron, S. and Price, D. (2009) Business Research Methods: A Practical Approach , London, CIPD

Every effort has been made to contact copyright owners. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.

Don’t miss out

If reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University – www.open.edu/ openlearn/ free-courses .

Copyright © 2016 The Open University

Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

At michigan state university, frib researchers lead team to merge nuclear physics experiments and astronomical observations to advance equation-of-state research, world-class particle-accelerator facilities and recent advances in neutron-star observation give physicists a new toolkit for describing nuclear interactions at a wide range of densities..

For most stars, neutron stars and black holes are their final resting places. When a supergiant star runs out of fuel, it expands and then rapidly collapses on itself. This act creates a neutron star—an object denser than our sun crammed into a space 13 to  18 miles wide. In such a heavily condensed stellar environment, most electrons combine with protons to make neutrons, resulting in a dense ball of matter consisting mainly of neutrons. Researchers try to understand the forces that control this process by creating dense matter in the laboratory through colliding neutron-rich nuclei and taking detailed measurements.

A research team—led by William Lynch and Betty Tsang at FRIB—is focused on learning about neutrons in dense environments. Lynch, Tsang, and their collaborators used 20 years of experimental data from accelerator facilities and neutron-star observations to understand how particles interact in nuclear matter under a wide range of densities and pressures. The team wanted to determine how the ratio of neutrons to protons influences nuclear forces in a system. The team recently published its findings in Nature Astronomy .

“In nuclear physics, we are often confined to studying small systems, but we know exactly what particles are in our nuclear systems. Stars provide us an unbelievable opportunity, because they are large systems where nuclear physics plays a vital role, but we do not know for sure what particles are in their interiors,” said Lynch, professor of nuclear physics at FRIB and in the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Physics and Astronomy. “They are interesting because the density varies greatly within such large systems.  Nuclear forces play a dominant role within them, yet we know comparatively little about that role.” 

When a star with a mass that is 20-30 times that of the sun exhausts its fuel, it cools, collapses, and explodes in a supernova. After this explosion, only the matter in the deepest part of the star’s interior coalesces to form a neutron star. This neutron star has no fuel to burn and over time, it radiates its remaining heat into the surrounding space. Scientists expect that matter in the outer core of a cold neutron star is roughly similar to the matter in atomic nuclei but with three differences: neutron stars are much larger, they are denser in their interiors, and a larger fraction of their nucleons are neutrons. Deep within the inner core of a neutron star, the composition of neutron star matter remains a mystery. 

  “If experiments could provide more guidance about the forces that act in their interiors, we could make better predictions of their interior composition and of phase transitions within them. Neutron stars present a great research opportunity to combine these disciplines,” said Lynch.

Accelerator facilities like FRIB help physicists study how subatomic particles interact under exotic conditions that are more common in neutron stars. When researchers compare these experiments to neutron-star observations, they can calculate the equation of state (EOS) of particles interacting in low-temperature, dense environments. The EOS describes matter in specific conditions, and how its properties change with density. Solving EOS for a wide range of settings helps researchers understand the strong nuclear force’s effects within dense objects, like neutron stars, in the cosmos. It also helps us learn more about neutron stars as they cool.

“This is the first time that we pulled together such a wealth of experimental data to explain the equation of state under these conditions, and this is important,” said Tsang, professor of nuclear science at FRIB. “Previous efforts have used theory to explain the low-density and low-energy end of nuclear matter. We wanted to use all the data we had available to us from our previous experiences with accelerators to obtain a comprehensive equation of state.”   

Researchers seeking the EOS often calculate it at higher temperatures or lower densities. They then draw conclusions for the system across a wider range of conditions. However, physicists have come to understand in recent years that an EOS obtained from an experiment is only relevant for a specific range of densities. As a result, the team needed to pull together data from a variety of accelerator experiments that used different measurements of colliding nuclei to replace those assumptions with data. “In this work, we asked two questions,” said Lynch. “For a given measurement, what density does that measurement probe? After that, we asked what that measurement tells us about the equation of state at that density.”   

In its recent paper, the team combined its own experiments from accelerator facilities in the United States and Japan. It pulled together data from 12 different experimental constraints and three neutron-star observations. The researchers focused on determining the EOS for nuclear matter ranging from half to three times a nuclei’s saturation density—the density found at the core of all stable nuclei. By producing this comprehensive EOS, the team provided new benchmarks for the larger nuclear physics and astrophysics communities to more accurately model interactions of nuclear matter.

The team improved its measurements at intermediate densities that neutron star observations do not provide through experiments at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science in Japan, and the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (FRIB’s predecessor). To enable key measurements discussed in this article, their experiments helped fund technical advances in data acquisition for active targets and time projection chambers that are being employed in many other experiments world-wide.   

In running these experiments at FRIB, Tsang and Lynch can continue to interact with MSU students who help advance the research with their own input and innovation. MSU operates FRIB as a scientific user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. FRIB is the only accelerator-based user facility on a university campus as one of 28 DOE-SC user facilities .  Chun Yen Tsang, the first author on the Nature Astronomy  paper, was a graduate student under Betty Tsang during this research and is now a researcher working jointly at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Kent State University. 

“Projects like this one are essential for attracting the brightest students, which ultimately makes these discoveries possible, and provides a steady pipeline to the U.S. workforce in nuclear science,” Tsang said.

The proposed FRIB energy upgrade ( FRIB400 ), supported by the scientific user community in the 2023 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee Long Range Plan , will allow the team to probe at even higher densities in the years to come. FRIB400 will double the reach of FRIB along the neutron dripline into a region relevant for neutron-star crusts and to allow study of extreme, neutron-rich nuclei such as calcium-68. 

Eric Gedenk is a freelance science writer.

Michigan State University operates the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) as a user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. Hosting what is designed to be the most powerful heavy-ion accelerator, FRIB enables scientists to make discoveries about the properties of rare isotopes in order to better understand the physics of nuclei, nuclear astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and applications for society, including in medicine, homeland security, and industry.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of today’s most pressing challenges. For more information, visit energy.gov/science.