Wendt , psychology Levy a , history Gunitsky ; Levy b and economics Hafner-Burton et al. As researchers, it can also help to develop tastes beyond traditional scholarship, to read fiction, consume television series and films, and leverage these created worlds and how they, too, can capture vital truths. With this depth of background and a notebook filled with potential topics of interest, researchers will be quicker to identify unexplored perspectives that may only be laid bare through participation in conferences and targeted subject-matter workshops.
Further, researchers often overlook the lowest-handing fruit in the discipline, failing to consume or 5 As Kristian Skrede Gleditsch would put it, simplicity is the simpler version of the term parsimony.
Specific and General Research Questions Unsurprisingly, academics usually face the hedgehog or fox dilemma Berlin : Do you want to know a lot about one thing Hedgehog , or do you want to know a little about many things? More tangibly, are you interested in why the Mau Mau rebellion emerged in Kenya between ?
Or are you interested, more broadly, in how civil wars start? While these questions are related, their relationship is important. While a scholar eager to explain why civil wars emerge might use the Mau Mau as a case of interest, a scholar focused on the Mau Mau will be limited to the lessons learned in this case alone.
Solving the hedgehog and fox dilemma, in part, demands a scholar decides what questions she can answer, and how comprehensive these answers can be. At base, it requires the researcher to decide whether they privilege or desire to show causal identification or whether questions i.
The event is quite specific, as it focuses on only one person in a specific year and within a precise country. The second step calls for substituting the specific details or attributes with their more general categories. In this way, our proposed strategy is consonant with others who advocate taking inspiration from a specific event or actors before formulating the wider research question Kellstedt and Whitten Of course, this passage is assuming possible different conceptualizations and, then, their relative operationalisations.
In the third step, we explore how the researcher might shed the temporal and geographical coordinates. Importantly, not all research questions should be a- historical or without geographical context. In fact, as researchers we believe quite the opposite see Figure 3 : historical context and geographical location have complex interaction effects with abstract categories in IR Eckstein ; Tilly and Goodin However, developing a research question demands an early attempt to simplify, eliminating layers of specificity 7 , recognizing that these layers, if necessary, can be added later.
In our fourth step, we focus on the main agent, the dictator, and lose the opposing regime type. Hence, we end up with a more general research question in which the project shifts from a study of interaction dyadic type that might explain war, to a focus on a single regime type monadic type and its influence.
Step four still contains some scope conditions, qualifying the specific circumstances that we Figure 1. From specific to abstract and vice versa i. Why Mr Green, in , when i. Specific individuals and facing a military threat from historical context. Explicit event Blueland did not wage war? Why a dictator, during the Cold War, when facing a ii. Substituting specific attributes military from a democracy did with general categories.
Why dictators when facing a iii. Removing historical or military threat from a geographical context democracy do not wage war? Why dictators when facing a iv. Abstracting with some scope military threat do not wage war? Why do dictators decide to go v. Shortening and general to war? While some puzzles emerge around the absence of an expected event, we suggest that posing a question in positive terms— why that something happened, instead of why that something did not—provides more clarity for the project, particularly as there can be a complex set of causal paths that explain the absence of a phenomenon.
Hence, the research question generating process should be similar to the craft of sculpture. Hence, studying what makes happy could be easier that its lack of. Thus, in our final step, we flip the question, shifting our study from an exploration of the phenomenon in the negative failing to waging war to the positive going to war , settling on our final version: Why do dictators decide to go to war? Jessica Week has studied this very question Weeks , and, while we do not know how she specifically arrived at her core research question, she assuredly leveraged her knowledge of specific cases to find her overarching questions within this new research agenda.
Reading through specific case studies and historical accounts can be a useful starting point for exploring the puzzles that remain. This concentration of focus—shifting from the general to their specific elements—is a reflex of intellectual development and can be seen in many research agendas. More than justifying the need for their specific research question, scholars must situate their potential contribution within this constellation of past and parallel insights. This means explaining how the resulting findings clarify or elaborate on previous research; how their research remains relevant to either or both scholarly and policy communities; and—often overlooked—whether the aim of the project is feasible.
Increasingly, academics will explain the additive benefits of working across and between disciplines, illustrating how the strengths of interdisciplinary co-authors were vital for performing the work. Research Questions Pillars 3. Most inquiries begin with a compelling puzzle. You only know you have discovered a puzzle by exploring the previous research.
Have you discovered something unexpected? Found conflict where you expected cooperation? Most puzzles, in fact, usually flow from reorganizing prior arguments and findings to highlight their logical tensions and empirical contradictions.
While this measure is subjective, it is related to the second pillar, filling a gap. However, these potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of investing in a research agenda with thinner or weaker systematic prior work.
Collier and Hoeffler ; J. Fearon and Laitin Today, the first mover advantage is held by scholars of cyber security and artificial intelligence. Where good research questions come from? As the second pillar in Figure 2 suggests, one natural starting point for a new research project is formulating a research question that finds and fills an extant gap. One way to attempt this is to explore a recent or old debate, conscious of the incongruities, and look for potential weak points in previous theoretical framework or empirical designs.
Researchers will benefit from challenging the assumptions that define either the piece of research or the related research agenda. For instance, this might include questioning how actors form preferences Moravcsik or whether actors adopt outcome-oriented rationality or process-oriented rationality. Hirschman Perhaps extant research has focused too much on material incentives capabilities, monetary, etc.
Perhaps there are stubborn, and under-assessed, assumptions about the utility of specific strategies for a given outcome—i. Challenging this assumption, scholars have developed pathbreaking work on the importance and influence of non-violent protest and its influence on regime change Chenoweth and Stephan Challenging assumptions has a long history of sparking new research agendas in IR: where does action take place Singer ?
Where is the agency A. Wendt ? Therefore, when we think about research questions and aim to formulate new research agendas, it can help to identify whether the phenomenon can be scrutinised either at the micro level for instance individuals , the macro level structural features or some mix of both.
Increasingly, scholars have identified the value of an intermediate layer, called the meso-level, where different organizational configurations an identity group, the state and international organization can connect both the micro and macro levels of analysis. The researcher ought to ask whether their research question has consequence to wider society and who might be influenced by its findings.
Another way to orient our thinking is to explore whether, and what kind, of non-academic9 may find value in the work. These non-academics may be government analysts, politicians, practitioners of NGOs, or civil servants at major inter- governmental bodies.
This should push scholars to avoid the crutch of academic jargon and avoid focusing on niche issues with unclear implications. Beyond a question of theme or topic, researchers should work tirelessly for clarity in thought and communication. Empirical sophistication is no excuse for sloppy, senselessly convoluted style. First, if authors are clear about possible policy implications, policy makers will be more apt to read and assess their research.
Second, clarity of argument and assertions should be considered a duty, particularly if your research resonates with contemporary policy challenges. If the policy implications are not made explicit, policy makers are apt to infer their own conclusions, potentially using and misusing vital research.
This point speaks to our question in the Figure 2: What are the ethical implications of study? Whether in terms of methodological approach and practice of gathering evidence, or the effect of publishing publicly on findings with clear social costs, it is incumbent on the researcher to fully understand the consequences of their work—for themselves and everyone they have involved. Academic institutions have strict procedures and process to assure that who will participate to a research project will not be facing any risk.
Supervisors and senior colleagues should take care to assist and advise, where relevant, early career scholars, given the intrinsic dangers of studying specific phenomena within international relations.
The fourth pillar, about methodological rigour, is an important concern within Political Science and IR. Our first question is trenchant though problematic: If facing a new research question, will you have the necessary data and methods to find an answer? This question is a necessary first inquiry, as it may also be the last: supervisors and more experienced scholar will be first to question the feasibility of a research project and, with concerns, try to refocus the core question.
At times, these good intentions are misplaced, and these individuals are wrong because they are not creative or visionary enough to see the potential. This can be additionally challenging because it is difficult to know what methods and data will be most effective, and if they are available, early in the research process.
Effective review of methods and existing data is a critical step, and the following chapters in this handbook will explore the wide, and widening, toolkit for IR scholars. Additionally, scholars should discern whether the requisite data exists, and not to despair immediately if the answer is unclear. A range of successful 10 We want to remember here the awful death of Giulio Regeni in Cairo. He was a graduate student who was doing field research. This chapter has been written also in his memory.
However, one should be cautious as large data gathering is quite demanding—most of the existing datasets are the product of years of research and obtained by armies of coders or advanced automated data gathering.
A single PhD student or early career scholar could face serious challenges if the data gathering is not thought through carefully. Pragmatism is an asset in assessing the data realities. Think carefully whether the research project is one of your choosing or, to greater or lesser extent, imposed by someone else. This imposition might take the form of a supervisor or academic peers. Your research question and project may also be the path dependent by-product of previous studies or successful essays.
Starting a fresh research agenda is quite rare in an academic life, akin to a luxury. Enjoyment is an important quality that may assist in motivating scholars to finish their project. Remember, however, the project is your own. It can be enervating and ultimately more satisfying to add your own creative twist. Please i am writing a proposal now i need your help Grace, Thank you very much for sharing your comment. I am happy that you found the article useful.
I guess you need to the respective topic first. Write a thesis proposal and submit to your supervisor. Then, the supervisor will ask for the respective topic that you prefer to make a research.
I guess you should initially do that. Reves-diary, Thank you for your input and thank you too for choosing to follow me. It looks like your choice to follow me took me to the mark in total followers. Your friend is right; it is tough to write research proposals especially good ones , at least on the first or second attempt. But, I found that once you get a formula down, then writing proposals becomes less demanding and time consuming.
Of course, there are different types of research proposals, such as quantitative by which the researcher uses numeric surveys and numbers to tell the story or qualitative by much he or she may use actual interviews and words either their own or others' to tell the story.
Each type has a learning curve, but once you get the hang of it, I think writing proposals eventually becomes second nature. Of course, that does not negate the need to spend ample time finding preceding literature on the subject. One of my friend is working with academic research proposal. She was telling me that, it is pretty damn tough to write academic research proposal.
You need to focus on every possible aspect, check and recheck properly of all the available information. I am very glad that you this article helpful. Tnx ecoggins. Am just seeing this write up but it has already relieved much work on my yet to be written dessertation proposal.
Great info. Is it always necessary to have a research hypothesis? What about in a quantitative comparative study. Will research purpose and question be enough to guide the study? All the best to you in everything. Marine Biology. Electrical Engineering. Computer Science. Medical Science.
An academic argument is not Academic Arguments Overview Although reflection and summary play a role in academic writing, your papers need to be founded in analysis and critique. Related Webinars. Student Wellness and Disability Services Any concerns about accessibility of materials on this site or compatibility with assistive technology should be addressed to disability mail.
The Vice Provost for Research will circulate a memorandum to selected campus administrators containing the data provided by the requesting unit. The memo will request their feedback and ask for any concerns regarding the suggested new center or institute name.
The Vice Provost for Research will review and address any issues or concerns within thirty days. If at the end of thirty days, either no issues are presented, or all issues are addressed, an approval will be sent to the requesting unit.
If the Office of the Provost does not raise any concern within 30 days of receiving the letter of intent, the dean may proceed with creation of the research center without further authorization.
In the case of NIH centers where the institution retains the option of choosing the center faculty and name, approval is required as outlined above.
0コメント