Week 3 Research Journal

Creswell and Poth, Chapter 6: Introducing and Focusing the Study

It really makes sense that the beginning of the study is the most important. All of the items mentioned--purpose, research questions, research problem--set the trajectory for the entire study to follow.

I also like the early emphasis on making all of the parts of the study flow together. There is a HUGE difference between a well-written study and one that does not naturally move from one section to another. 

The purpose statement is THE most important part of the research project, according to Creswell and Poth; it lets us know what the author wants to accomplish with the study.

Interrelating the Study Problem, Purpose, and Questions Within Research

Identify a problem & create research problem statement (focused on study purpose)
Create research purpose statement ("study aim")
Draft specific research questions 

The Research Problem Statement 

"The intent of a research problem in qualitative research is to provide a rationale or need for studying a particular issue or problem." This is why the study needs to be conducted, why the researcher is drawn to this subject, why others need to care about this project.

"Deficiencies model of an introduction" really makes sense to me. In the overview of our future lit reviews during Dr. Driscoll's boot camp, she emphasized this approach. By finding the deficiencies--or gaps--in the existing knowledge, we can carve out a space for ourselves to introduce what we have created. 

Components of a good introduction:

1. Advance the topic or general subject matter of the research study by creating reader interest in a few beginning sentences or a paragraph.

2. Discuss the research problem or issues that leads to a need for study.

3. Summarize the scholarly literature.

4. Point to deficiencies in evidence using the current literature or discussions.

5. Argue importance of the study for audiences. 

The Purpose Statement 

This is the "road map" for the study, but according to the authors, far too many researchers do not do a good job of explicitly stating all (or any, really) of the essential elements of this statement. I always tell my writing students that a good thesis statement provides structure for their papers and allows the readers to understand where the paper is going; the purpose statement seems to be equivalent in terms of providing structure and alerting the readers of the qualitative study to certain items which are critical to understanding the study as a whole.

Random side note: I really wish the text on the figures could be enlarged so I could read them. I try to make then larger, but they just end up pixelating.

Second random side note: I really appreciate the examples of purpose statements!

The Research Questions: Central Question and Subquestions

"Qualitative research questions are open-ended, evolving, and nondirectional." This strikes me as a super important statement. We go into these studies with an open mind, and as we learn from our participants and the results, our study evolves; so, in essence, our research questions mirror the trajectory of our overall study (at least in my mind). If we went into a study expecting a particular outcome and then were disappointed or did not accept the results, then what was the purpose of conducting the study at all? We learn through growth and change, not through stagnation of ideas.

The central question, as the name implies, is the overarching inquiry of the study; this needs to be broad in scope. The subquestions will do the work of refining. Subquestions can also help shape questions used for data collection purposes.

Fuentes, "A Qualitative Approach to EFL Postgraduates' GenAI-Assisted Research Writing Within Social Sciences"

This study focuses on postgraduate EFL students in Spain and their utilization of GenAI tools for writing.

The gap of knowledge identified is that while similar studies have been done, most of them have focused on undergrads. This gap is further illuminated by the resources available in the lit review.

Research Questions

The study identifies two research questions, namely:

1. How does a small group of doctoral and post-doctoral EFL writers within Social Sciences approach their academic texts using GenAI tools?

This question seems to be the central question, as defined by Creswell and Poth. It presents the overarching point of inquiry for the entire study, and is very broad in scope. This question focuses on how the participants use GenAI tools, which could yield a broad range of results, and responses will likely vary a good deal between participants.

2. How do these writers appraise these tools for English writing within their fields?

This is clearly a subquestion, as it refines the central question. The participants are here being asked to evaluate the GenAI tools they are using, which goes beyond (and yet supports) the central question of how the tools are being used. Before reading any further, I would assume that the researcher would provide some sort of numerical scale on which to rate the tools, in order to yield comparable results.

The methodology of the study supports the aims of the research questions by assessing the use of GenAI through three data sources: observation, writing tasks, and a survey. The final survey included Likert-scale items for the purposes of evaluation (as I suspected).

Results

The open-ended nature of the central question allowed for a variety of narrative information to be incorporated into the results. All types of experiences were included for evaluation, which would not have been possible with a more "closed" question. Additionally, the usage of GenAI for all parts of the writing process could be evaluated since the central research question did not place limits on the participants' answers.

The more defined subquestion allowed for the creation of survey items which were measurable on the Likert scale. This allows for the data to be compiled and compared fairly easily. This more specifically honed type of question and the resulting data facilitates the creation of charts which allow for easy visual comparison. 

Discussion & Conclusions

The discussion of the findings of this study also reflect the open-ended nature of the central research question. Because no limits were put on the types of experiences the participants shared, the researcher was able to pinpoint several areas where GenAI is useful (as well as critiques of its failings) that otherwise might have been excluded. This speaks to the necessity for the central research questions to be open-ended and flexible.

The conclusion of the study makes sure to address both research questions and summarize the findings of each. This showcases the importance of keeping the research questions in mind during every step of the research process, all the way to the very end. By doing so, you create a study that is focuses and cohesive.

Discussion Question #1: How many subquestions are needed to effectively refine the central question? Can we have too many subquestions?

Discussion Question #2: Should all qualitative studies include some sort of scale-based questions for the purposes of evaluation and comparison?

Discussion Question #3: If the findings of our study give us more information than we had anticipated, is it ok to go back and redefine our existing subquestions or even add more subquestions?