-Is the target population narrow or broad?
-Is the target population vulnerable?
-What are the eligibility criteria?
-What is the most appropriate recruitment strategy?
Occasionally, the intended population of the study needs to be modified, in order to overcome any potential ethical issues, and/or for the sake of convenience and feasibility of the project. Yet, the researcher must be aware that the external validity of the results may be compromised. As an illustration, in a randomised clinical trial, authors compared the ease of tracheal tube insertion between C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy, in patients presenting to the emergency department with an indication of rapid sequence intubation. However, owing to the existence of ethical concerns, a substantial amount of patients requiring emergency tracheal intubation, including patients with major maxillofacial trauma and ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, had to be excluded from the trial.[ 14 ] In fact, the design of prospective studies to explore this subset of patients can be challenging, not only because of ethical considerations, but because of the low incidence of these cases. In another study, Metterlein et al . compared the glottis visualisation among five different supraglottic airway devices, using fibreroptic-guided tracheal intubation in an adult population. Despite that the study was aimed to explore the ease of intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airway (thus requiring fibreoptic tracheal intubation), authors decided to enrol patients undergoing elective laser treatment for genital condylomas, as a strategy to hasten the recruitment process and optimise resources.[ 15 ]
Anaesthetic interventions can be classified into pharmacological (experimental treatment) and nonpharmacological. Among nonpharmacological interventions, the most common include anaesthetic techniques, monitoring instruments and airway devices. For example, it would be appropriate to examine the ease of insertion of Supreme™ LMA, when compared with ProSeal™ LMA. Notwithstanding, a common mistake is the tendency to be focused on the data aimed to be collected (the “stated” objective), rather than the question that needs to be answered (the “latent” objective).[ 1 , 4 ] In one clinical trial, authors stated: “we compared the Supreme™ and ProSeal™ LMAs in infants by measuring their performance characteristics, including insertion features, ventilation parameters, induced changes in haemodynamics, and rates of postoperative complications”.[ 10 ] Here, the research question has been centered on the measurements (insertion characteristics, haemodynamic variables, LMA insertion characteristics, ventilation parameters) rather than the clinical problem that needs to be addressed (is Supreme™ LMA easier to insert than ProSeal™ LMA?).
Comparators in clinical research can also be pharmacological (e.g., gold standard or placebo) or nonpharmacological. Typically, not more than two comparator groups are included in a clinical trial. Multiple comparisons should be generally avoided, unless there is enough statistical power to address the end points of interest, and statistical analyses have been adjusted for multiple testing. For instance, in the aforementioned study of Metterlein et al .,[ 15 ] authors compared five supraglottic airway devices by recruiting only 10--12 participants per group. In spite of the authors' recommendation of using two supraglottic devices based on the results of the study, there was no mention of statistical adjustments for multiple comparisons, and given the small sample size, larger clinical trials will undoubtedly be needed to confirm or refute these findings.[ 15 ]
A clear formulation of the primary outcome results of vital importance in clinical research, as the primary statistical analyses, including the sample size calculation (and therefore, the estimation of the effect size and statistical power), will be derived from the main outcome of interest. While it is clear that using more than one primary outcome would not be appropriate, it would be equally inadequate to include multiple point measurements of the same variable as the primary outcome (e.g., visual analogue scale for pain at 1, 2, 6, and 12 h postoperatively).
Composite outcomes, in which multiple primary endpoints are combined, may make it difficult to draw any conclusions based on the study findings. For example, in a clinical trial, 200 children undergoing ophthalmic surgery were recruited to explore the incidence of respiratory adverse events, when comparing desflurane with sevoflurane, following the removal of flexible LMA during the emergence of the anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the number of respiratory events, including breath holding, coughing, secretions requiring suction, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, and mild desaturation.[ 16 ] Should authors had claimed a significant difference between these anaesthetic volatiles, it would have been important to elucidate whether those differences were due to serious adverse events, like laryngospasm or bronchospasm, or the results were explained by any of the other events (e.g., secretions requiring suction). While it is true that clinical trials evaluating the occurrence of adverse events like laryngospasm/bronchospasm,[ 16 , 17 ] or life-threating complications following a tracheal intubation (e.g., inadvertent oesophageal placement, dental damage or injury of the larynx/pharynx)[ 14 ] are almost invariably underpowered, because the incidence of such events is expected to be low, subjective outcomes like coughing or secretions requiring suction should be avoided, as they are highly dependent on the examiner's criteria.[ 16 ]
Secondary outcomes are useful to document potential side effects (e.g., gastric insufflation after placing a supraglottic device), and evaluate the adherence (say, airway leak pressure) and safety of the intervention (for instance, occurrence, or laryngospasm/bronchospasm).[ 17 ] Nevertheless, the problem of addressing multiple secondary outcomes without the adequate statistical power is habitual in medical literature. A good illustration of this issue can be found in a study evaluating the performance of two supraglottic devices in 50 anaesthetised infants and neonates, whereby authors could not draw any conclusions in regard to potential differences in the occurrence of complications, because the sample size calculated made the study underpowered to explore those differences.[ 17 ]
Among PICOT components, the time frame is the most likely to be omitted or inappropriate.[ 1 , 12 ] There are two key aspects of the time component that need to be clearly specified in the research question: the time of measuring the outcome variables (e.g. visual analogue scale for pain at 1, 2, 6, and 12 h postoperatively), and the duration of each measurement (when indicated). The omission of these details in the study protocol might lead to substantial differences in the methodology used. For instance, if a study is designed to compare the insertion times of three different supraglottic devices, and researchers do not specify the exact moment of LMA insertion in the clinical trial protocol (i.e., at the anaesthetic induction after reaching a BIS index < 60), placing an LMA with insufficient depth of anaesthesia would have compromised the internal validity of the results, because inserting a supraglottic device in those patients would have resulted in failed attempts and longer insertion times.[ 10 ]
A well-elaborated research question may not necessarily be a good question. The proposed study also requires being achievable from both ethical and realistic perspectives, interesting and useful to the clinical practice, and capable to formulate new hypotheses, that may contribute to the generation of knowledge. Researchers have developed an effective way to convey the message of how to build a good research question, that is usually recalled under the acronym of FINER (feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant).[ 5 , 6 , 7 ] Table 2 highlights the main characteristics of FINER criteria.[ 7 ]
Main features of FINER criteria (Feasibility, interest, novelty, ethics, and relevance) to formulate a good research question. Adapted from Cummings et al .[ 7 ]
Component | Criteria |
---|---|
Feasible | -Ensures adequacy of research design -Guarantees adequate funding -Recruits target population strategically -Aims an achievable sample size -Prioritises measurable outcomes -Optimises human and technical resources -Accounts for clinicians commitment -Procures high adherence to the treatment and low rate of dropouts -Opts for appropriate and affordable frame time |
Interesting | -Engages the interest of principal investigators -Attracts the attention of readers -Presents a different perspective of the problem |
Novel | -Provides different findings -Generates new hypotheses -Improves methodological flaws of existing studies -Resolves a gap in the existing literature |
Ethical | -Complies with local ethical committees -Safeguards the main principles of ethical research -Guarantees safety and reversibility of side effects |
Relevant | -Generates new knowledge -Contributes to improve clinical practice -Stimulates further research -Provides an accurate answer to a specific research question |
Although it is clear that any research project should commence with an accurate literature interpretation, in many instances it represents the start and the end of the research: the reader will soon realise that the answer to several questions can be easily found in the published literature.[ 5 ] When the question overcomes the test of a thorough literature review, the project may become novel (there is a gap in the knowledge, and therefore, there is a need for new evidence on the topic) and relevant (the paper may contribute to change the clinical practice). In this context, it is important to distinguish the difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance: in the aforementioned study of Oba et al .,[ 10 ] despite the means of insertion times were reported as significant for the Supreme™ LMA, as compared with ProSeal™ LMA, the difference found in the insertion times (528 vs. 486 sec, respectively), although reported as significant, had little or no clinical relevance.[ 10 ] Conversely, a statistically significant difference of 12 sec might be of clinical relevance in neonates weighing <5 kg.[ 17 ] Thus, statistical tests must be interpreted in the context of a clinically meaningful effect size, which should be previously defined by the researcher.
Among FINER criteria, there are two potential barriers that may prevent the successful conduct of the project and publication of the manuscript: feasibility and ethical aspects. These obstacles are usually related to the target population, as discussed above. Feasibility refers not only to the budget but also to the complexity of the design, recruitment strategy, blinding, adequacy of the sample size, measurement of the outcome, time of follow-up of participants, and commitment of clinicians, among others.[ 3 , 7 ] Funding, as a component of feasibility, may also be implicated in the ethical principles of clinical research, because the choice of the primary study question may be markedly influenced by the specific criteria demanded in the interest of potential funders.
Discussing ethical issues with local committees is compulsory, as rules applied might vary among countries.[ 18 ] Potential risks and benefits need to be carefully weighed, based upon the four principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.[ 19 ] Although many of these issues may be related to the population target (e.g., conducting a clinical trial in patients with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation would be inappropriate, as would be anaesthetising patients undergoing elective LASER treatment for condylomas, to examine the performance of supraglottic airway devices),[ 14 , 15 ] ethical conflicts may also arise from the intervention (particularly those involving the occurrence of side effects or complications, and their potential for reversibility), comparison (e.g., use of placebo or sham procedures),[ 19 ] outcome (surrogate outcomes should be considered in lieu of long term outcomes), or time frame (e.g., unnecessary longer exposition to an intervention). Thus, FINER criteria should not be conceived without a concomitant examination of the PICOT checklist, and consequently, PICOT framework and FINER criteria should not be seen as separated components, but rather complementary ingredients of a good research question.
Undoubtedly, no research project can be conducted if it is deemed unfeasible, and most institutional review boards would not be in a position to approve a work with major ethical problems. Nonetheless, whether or not the findings are interesting, is a subjective matter. Engaging the attention of readers also depends upon a number of factors, including the manner of presenting the problem, the background of the topic, the intended audience, and the reader's expectations. Furthermore, the interest is usually linked to the novelty and relevance of the topic, and it is worth nothing that editors and peer reviewers of high-impact medical journals are usually reluctant to accept any publication, if there is no novelty inherent to the research hypothesis, or there is a lack of relevance in the results.[ 11 ] Nevertheless, a considerable number of papers have been published without any novelty or relevance in the topic addressed. This is probably reflected in a recent survey, according to which only a third of respondents declared to have read thoroughly the most recent papers downloaded, and at least half of those manuscripts remained unread.[ 20 ] The same study reported that up to one-third of papers examined remained uncited after 5 years of publication, and only 20% of papers accounted for 80% of the citations.[ 20 ]
Formulating a good research question can be fascinating, albeit challenging, even for experienced investigators. While it is clear that clinical experience in combination with the accurate interpretation of literature and teamwork are essential to develop new ideas, the formulation of a clinical problem usually requires the compliance with PICOT framework in conjunction with FINER criteria, in order to translate a clinical dilemma into a researchable question. Working in the right environment with the adequate support of experienced researchers, will certainly make a difference in the generation of knowledge. By doing this, a lot of time will be saved in the search of the primary study question, and undoubtedly, there will be more chances to become a successful researcher.
Conflicts of interest.
There are no conflicts of interest.
Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))
193k Accesses
In this chapter, the research question is studied. We focus on how to find a research question that is specific enough, so that you are not tempted to explore paths that are only tangentially related to your research question. The literature review identifies gaps in the current knowledge, and you will learn how to frame a research question within these gaps. We then explore how to subdivide the research question into subquestions. These subquestions become the chapters of your dissertation. We also look at creative thinking, a skill necessary to think out of the box to formulate your research question. This chapter discusses how to convince your supervisor of your research question. It can happen that your supervisor already has an idea of the direction in which your research should be going, but if you can provide technically sound arguments based on your literature review why this approach is not ideal, and why you propose a different road, you should be able to have the freedom to explore your proposed option. Once you have outlined your research question, it is necessary to turn the question and subquestions into practical actions. These practical actions link back to the planning skills you learned in Chap. 3 .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Time blocks of 25 minutes during which you concentrate on one single task. You can find more information about the Pomodoro technique in the glossary of Part II.
I often work with noise-cancelling headphones.
The course is sweet and short, and runs frequently. I highly recommend it!
Refer to Chap. 4 for examples on how I use mindmaps to structure documents, such as a literature review report.
Kara, H. (2015). Creative research methods in the Social Sciences: A practical guide . Bristol: Policy Press.
Google Scholar
Kara, H. (2015). How to choose your research question. PhD Talk . http://phdtalk.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-to-choose-your-research-question.html
Lantsoght, E. (2012). The creative process: The importance of questions. PhD Talk . http://phdtalk.blogspot.nl/2012/11/the-creative-process-importance-of.html
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R., & Hutchings, E. (1997). “Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a curious character (1st pbk ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.
Lantsoght, E. (2012). The creative process: The creative habit. PhD Talk . http://phdtalk.blogspot.nl/2012/11/the-creative-process-creative-habit.html
Rose, C. (2016). 15 minute history . http://15minutehistory.org /
Oakley, B. (2014). A mind for numbers: How to excel at Math and Science (even if you flunked algebra) . New York: TarcherPerigree.
Lantsoght E (2011). Book review: Starting research: An introduction to academic research and dissertation writing – Roy Preece. PhD Talk . http://phdtalk.blogspot.nl/2011/07/book-review-starting-research.html .
Preece, R. (2000). Starting research: An introduction to academic research and dissertation writing . London: Continuum.
Lantsoght, E. (2014). An example outline diagram for structuring your dissertation. PhD Talk . http://phdtalk.blogspot.nl/2014/08/an-example-outline-diagram-for.html
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
Eva O. L. Lantsoght
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Reprints and permissions
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
Lantsoght, E.O.L. (2018). Formulating Your Research Question. In: The A-Z of the PhD Trajectory. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77425-1_5
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77425-1_5
Published : 26 May 2018
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-319-77424-4
Online ISBN : 978-3-319-77425-1
eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
In any quest for knowledge and understanding, asking questions is a fundamental step. When conducting research, the process begins with formulating a research question. A research question acts as a guide for investigation and forms the basis for an essay or a research paper. It defines the scope of the inquiry and helps focus the research efforts.
Formulation of studies question (RQ) is an essentiality earlier than beginning any studies. It targets to discover an present uncertainty in a place of problem and factors to a want for planned investigation. The required details for Research questions in given paragraph.
A good research question is essential to guide your research paper, dissertation, or thesis. All research questions should be: Focused on a single problem or issue. Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources. Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints. Specific enough to answer thoroughly.
1. Provide a scientific context for the research and to validate it against the 3 criteria for a good research question. 2. Avoid duplication of effort. 3. Identify potential problems in conducting the research. 4 Types of Information for Literature Review. 1. Relevant theories.
In a research paper, the emphasis is on generating a unique question and then synthesizing diverse sources into a coherent essay that supports your argument about the topic. In other words, you integrate information from publications with your own thoughts in order to formulate an argument. Your topic is your starting place: from here, you will ...
Abstract. 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 ...
As such, the purpose of this commentary is to provide useful guidance on composing and evaluating rigorous research questions. 2. A framework for formulating research questions. Although every research project is unique, they share common domains that a researcher should consider and define a priori.
Formulating a Research Question As noted in Module 1: Types of Reviews, conducting a "pre-search" is a crucial first step in devising the research question.A well-formulated research question informs the research process. It can focus your information needs (i.e. identify inclusion and exclusion criteria), help to identify key search concepts, and guide you in the direction of relevant ...
contains types of research questions, characteristics, purpose, and develop research questions. Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free.
The Purpose of Research Questions. Research questions are very important. Both professional researchers and successful student researchers develop research questions. That's because research questions are more than handy tools; they are essential to the research process. By defining exactly what the researcher is trying to find out, these ...
In a research paper, the emphasis is on generating a unique question and then synthesizing diverse sources into a coherent essay that supports your argument about the topic. In other words, you integrate information from publications with your own thoughts in order to formulate an argument. Your topic is your starting place: from here, you will ...
The process of formulating a good research question can be challenging and frustrating. While a comprehensive literature review is compulsory, the researcher usually encounters methodological difficulties in the conduct of the study, particularly if the primary study question has not been adequately selected in accordance with the clinical dilemma that needs to be addressed.
In essence, the research question that guides the sciences and social sciences should do the following three things:2. 1) Post a problem. 2) Shape the problem into a testable hypothesis. 3) Report the results of the tested hypothesis. There are two types of data that can help shape research questions in the sciences and social sciences ...
2.1 Identifying Gaps in the Knowledge. Before you define your research question, you need to have a broad and deep understanding of your research field. In Chap. 4, you learned how to develop the literature review as your starting point for understanding, and then engaging with, the scientific output in your field.
Formulating the right question is not only the first step in doing research but the most important part. In order to succeed, a research question must be the right question having the following characteristics: a question that is interesting a researcher as well the reader; a question that can be answered within the time available; a question that can be translated into a hypothesis; and a ...
The statement that developing research questions and formulating hypotheses are foundational steps that precede the definition of the primary research purpose and specific objectives of a study is true. Research begins with a general question that leads to the modeling of a part of reality in terms of theoretical constructs.
Answer. Answer: Formulation of research question (RQ) is an essentiality before starting any research. ... 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.
Final answer: Developing a research question is essential for guiding research and focusing inquiry. Explanation: The purpose of developing an overall research question is crucial as it centers and guides the direction of a research plan. By formulating a clear research question, writers can define the scope of their project and provide a focused inquiry for the audience.
What is the reason why formulating a research question is one of the first steps in a research project? See answers Advertisement Advertisement mmanjeetkaurin mmanjeetkaurin Answer: It helps refine what is being researched. It helps lay the groundwork for the research. ... Get the Brainly App Download iOS App
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.
It helps to clarify the scope and relevance of the research and aids in determining its direction and methodology. Yes, in order to formulate the question and purpose for your research requires considering the time dimension. The time dimension refers to the time in which your research is carried out. It has a significant effect on the research ...