research questions should meet all of the following criteria except

Not sure how to log in to access library resources? Click here to learn how!

Library Home

• Library Website
• Research Basics

Developing a Research Question

• Introduction
• The Research Process
• Scholarly & Peer-Reviewed
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Quantitative vs. Qualitative
• Evaluating Sources

What is a research question?

A research question is an essential tool to help guide your research paper, project, or thesis. It poses a specific question that you are seeking to answer in your paper. Research questions can be broad or narrow, and can change throughout the research process.

A good research question should be:

• Focused on a single issue
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly in your paper
• Feasible to answer within the length of your paper
• Researchable using the resources available to you
• Relevant to your field of study and/or to society at large

The length of your paper and the research you're able to locate will help to shape your research question. A longer paper, like a thesis or dissertation, may require multiple research questions.

The answer to your research question develops into your thesis statement .

Writing Your Research Question

Chose a Topic

You should choose a research topic that is interesting to you. This will make the research and writing process much more bearable.

A good way to begin brainstorming research questions is to list all the questions you would like to see answered, or topics you would like to learn more about. You may have been provided a list of potential topics by your professor, if none are interesting to you ask if you can develop your own.

It is better to start broad and narrow down your focus as you go.

Do Preliminary Research

Reference materials like encyclopedias can also be good for this purpose.

Narrow Your Topic

Now that you have a basic idea of what research exists on your topic, you can begin to narrow your focus.

Make sure that your question is specific enough that it can be answered thoroughly in the length of your paper.

Developing a Research Question Video Tutorial

Using Keywords Video Tutorial

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: The Research Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 15, 2023 3:47 PM
• URL: https://library.ndnu.edu/researchbasics

Academic Success Center

Emergency Information

© 2023 Notre Dame de Namur University. All rights reserved.

Notre Dame de Namur University 1500 Ralston Avenue Belmont, CA 94002 Map

Literature Searching

Characteristics of a good research question

The first step in a literature search is to construct a well-defined question.  This helps in ensuring a comprehensive and efficient search of the available literature for relevant publications on your topic.  The well-constructed research question provides guidance for determining search terms and search strategy parameters.

A good or well-constructed research question is:

• Original and of interest to the researcher and the outside world
• It is clear and focused: it provides enough specifics that it is easy to understand its purpose and it is narrow enough that it can be answered. If the question is too broad it may not be possible to answer it thoroughly. If it is too narrow you may not find enough resources or information to develop a strong argument or research hypothesis.  
• The question concept is researchable in terms of time and access to a suitable amount of quality research resources.
• It is analytical rather than descriptive.  The research question should allow you to produce an analysis of an issue or problem rather than a simple description of it.  In other words, it is not answerable with a simple “yes” or “no” but requires a synthesis and analysis of ideas and sources.
• The results are potentially important and may change current ideas and/or practice
• And there is the potential to develop further projects with similar themes

The question you ask should be developed for the discipline you are studying. A question appropriate for Physical Therapy, for instance, is different from an appropriate one in Sociology, Political Science or Microbiology .

The well-constructed question provides guidance for determining search terms and search strategy parameters. The process of developing a good question to research involves taking your topic and breaking each aspect of it down into its component parts. 

One well-established way that can be used both for creating research questions and developing strategies is known as PICO(T). The PICO framework was designed primarily for questions that include clinical interventions and comparisons, however other types of questions may also be able to follow its principles.  If the PICO framework does not precisely fit your question, using its principles can help you to think about what you want to explore even if you do not end up with a true PICO question.

References/Additional Resources

Fandino W. (2019). Formulating a good research question: Pearls and pitfalls.   Indian journal of anaesthesia ,  63 (8), 611–616. 

Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Pearce, N. (2018). From ideas to studies: how to get ideas and sharpen them into research questions .  Clinical epidemiology ,  10 , 253–264.

Ratan, S. K., Anand, T., & Ratan, J. (2019). Formulation of Research Question - Stepwise Approach .  Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons ,  24 (1), 15–20.

Lipowski, E.E. (2008). Developing great research questions. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(17) , 1667–1670.

FINER Criteria

Another set of criteria for developing a research question was proposed by Hulley (2013) and is known as the FINER criteria. 

FINER stands for:

Feasible – Writing a feasible research question means that it CAN be answered under objective aspects like time, scope, resources, expertise, or funding. Good questions must be amenable to the formulation of clear hypotheses.

Interesting – The question or topic should be of interest to the researcher and the outside world. It should have a clinical and/or educational significance – the “so what?” factor. 

Novel – In scientific literature, novelty defines itself by being an answer to an existing gap in knowledge. Filling one of these gaps is highly rewarding for any researcher as it may represent a real difference in peoples’ lives.

Good research leads to new information. An investigation which simply reiterates what is previously proven is not worth the effort and cost. A question doesn’t have to be completely original. It may ask whether an earlier observation could be replicated, whether the results in one population also apply to others, or whether enhanced measurement methods can make clear the relationship between two variables.  

Ethical – In empirical research, ethics is an absolute MUST. Make sure that safety and confidentiality measures are addressed, and according to the necessary IRB protocols.

Relevant – An idea that is considered relevant in the healthcare community has better chances to be discussed upon by a larger number of researchers and recognized experts, leading to innovation and rapid information dissemination.

The results could potentially be important and may change current ideas and/or practice.

Cummings, S.R., Browner, W.S., & Hulley, S.B. (2013). Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Designing clinical research (Hulley, S. R. Cummings, W. S. Browner, D. Grady, & T. B. Newman, Eds.; Fourth edition.). Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Pp. 14-22.    

• << Previous: Major Steps in a Literature Search
• Next: Types of Research Questions >>

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

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

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

Developing a research question

Your research questions are perhaps the most important part of your study. They guide your choice of methodology and underpin each chapter in your thesis or dissertation. It’s worth investing time to develop robust questions that will guide your research.

Identifying an effective research question

While the criteria for an effective research question vary considerably, generally, a research question should be:

• focused – its scope should be adequately narrow to allow you to carry out your research within the available timeframe and using available resources.
• analytical (as opposed to descriptive) – your research question needs to display enough complexity so that the answers to it cannot be easily obtained. For example, it cannot be answered through a simple internet search or fact check. An effective research question would require answers which are subject to interpretation, analysis and synthesis.
• effectively expressed – the research question needs to use clear, specific and concise language so that it is accessbile to the reader.

Strategies for developing effective research questions

To develop effective research questions, you may like to try one of the following two key strategies:

I) Convert your topic into one or more research questions by:

• breaking down your topic into its different features
• choosing a feature that interests you to narrow down your topic scope
• brainstorming and reading literature around this feature to focus it further
• convert this focused feature into question form.

II) Formulate a problem statement and then convert it into question form. Use the following template as a guide to writing your problem statement:

• I am examining …
• It matters because…

The following presentation shows how to use the above discussed strategies for developing robust research questions. Work through each section of the webinar. Feel free to pause the video at suitable points and complete the included activities.

Presentation on developing research questions (12:54 min)

Developing your research questions (12:54 min) by RMIT University ( YouTube )

Further resources

For more information on research questions, consult the following resources:

• How Research Questions Can Make or Break Your Project (8:36 min) by Professor James Arvanitakis ( YouTube )
• Research Questions Hypothesis and Variables: Connecting the Dots (7:55 min) by Associate Professor Ron Wallace  ( YouTube )

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Think Like a Researcher: Instruction Resources: #6 Developing Successful Research Questions

• Guide Organization
• Overall Summary
• #1 Think Like a Researcher!
• #2 How to Read a Scholarly Article
• #3 Reading for Keywords (CREDO)
• #4 Using Google for Academic Research
• #4 Using Google for Academic Research (Alternate)
• #5 Integrating Sources
• Research Question Discussion
• #7 Avoiding Researcher Bias
• #8 Understanding the Information Cycle
• #9 Exploring Databases
• #10 Library Session
• #11 Post Library Session Activities
• Summary - Readings
• Summary - Research Journal Prompts
• Summary - Key Assignments
• Jigsaw Readings
• Permission Form

Course Learning Outcome:   Develop ability to synthesize and express complex ideas; demonstrate information literacy and be able to work with evidence

Goal:  Develop students’ ability to recognize and create successful research questions

Specifically, students will be able to

• identify the components of a successful research question.
• create a viable research question.

What Makes a Good Research Topic Handout

These handouts are intended to be used as a discussion generator that will help students develop a solid research topic or question. Many students start with topics that are poorly articulated, too broad, unarguable, or are socially insignificant. Each of these problems may result in a topic that is virtually un-researchable. Starting with a researchable topic is critical to writing an effective paper.

Research shows that students are much more invested in writing when they are able to choose their own topics. However, there is also research to support the notion that students are completely overwhelmed and frustrated when they are given complete freedom to write about whatever they choose. Providing some structure or topic themes that allow students to make bounded choices may be a way mitigate these competing realities.

These handouts can be modified or edited for your purposes.  One can be used as a handout for students while the other can serve as a sample answer key.  The document is best used as part of a process.  For instance, perhaps starting with discussing the issues and potential research questions, moving on to problems and social significance but returning to proposals/solutions at a later date.

• Research Questions - Handout Key (2 pgs) This document is a condensed version of "What Makes a Good Research Topic". It serves as a key.
• Research Questions - Handout for Students (2 pgs) This document could be used with a class to discuss sample research questions (are they suitable?) and to have them start thinking about problems, social significance, and solutions for additional sample research questions.
• Research Question Discussion This tab includes materials for introduction students to research question criteria for a problem/solution essay.

Additional Resources

These documents have similarities to those above.  They represent original documents and conversations about research questions from previous TRAIL trainings.

• What Makes a Good Research Topic? - Original Handout (4 pgs)
• What Makes a Good Research Topic? Revised Jan. 2016 (4 pgs)
• What Makes a Good Research Topic? Revised Jan 2016 with comments

Topic Selection (NCSU Libraries)

Howard, Rebecca Moore, Tricia Serviss, and Tanya K. Rodrigues. " Writing from sources, writing from sentences ." Writing & Pedagogy 2.2 (2010): 177-192.

Research Journal

Assign after students have participated in the Developing Successful Research Topics/Questions Lesson OR have drafted a Research Proposal.

Think about your potential research question.

• What is the problem that underlies your question?
• Is the problem of social significance? Explain.
• Is your proposed solution to the problem feasible? Explain.
• Do you think there is evidence to support your solution?

Keys for Writers - Additional Resource

Keys for Writers (Raimes and Miller-Cochran) includes a section to guide students in the formation of an arguable claim (thesis).  The authors advise students to avoid the following since they are not debatable. 

• "a neutral statement, which gives no hint of the writer's position"
• "an announcement of the paper's broad subject"
• "a fact, which is not arguable"
• "a truism (statement that is obviously true)"
• "a personal or religious conviction that cannot be logically debated"
• "an opinion based only on your feelings"
• "a sweeping generalization" (Section 4C, pg. 52)

The book also provides examples and key points (pg. 53) for a good working thesis.

• << Previous: #5 Integrating Sources
• Next: Research Question Discussion >>
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 10:23 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/think_like_a_researcher

Evaluating Your Research Question

Barry Mauer and John Venecek

We discuss the following topic on this page:

We also provide the following activities:

Evaluating Your Research Question [Refresher]

How do you know when you have posed a good research question? Below we discuss several criteria for evaluating your research question. Keep reworking your research question until it meets all the criteria.

Evaluating Your Research Question [1]

The spectrum of inquiry ranges from asking simple questions that depend upon basic recapitulation of knowledge to increasingly sophisticated abilities to refine research questions, use more advanced research methods, and explore more diverse disciplinary perspectives. [2]  

The research question is your ticket to joining the scholarly conversation. It should help the reader to consider something that is either not well understood or that is currently misunderstood within the current scholarly conversation. Note that your research question can be about either a work (or works) of literature or about the scholarly conversation related to a work of literature.

Key Concepts

• Is your question clear, complex, and focused?
• Is your answer arguable?

Once you have developed a workable research question, the next step is to ensure that it’s clear, complex, focused, and that the answer is arguable. This brings us back to the conversation analogy: Will others in your field – your audience – want to discuss your question? Will your findings add anything meaningful to the discourse and keep the conversation going?

• Are you filling a gap or solving a problem in relation to the existing scholarly discourse? (Either is fine – just know which direction your research is going).
• Is your question loaded or leading? In other words, does the question presume things that are not settled? (If so, keep refining your question)
• Is your question too broad? For instance, if it covers all literature of all time from all places, it is probably too broad. (If so, keep refining your question)
• Is the scope of your project realistic and researchable within the given timeframe? Keep in mind that some kinds of studies – like comparisons between two authors – can take longer than others. (If not, keep refining your question)
• Do you have the tools and/or technology needed to accomplish your task? (If not, keep refining your question)
• Do you have access to the information and resources you will need? (If not, keep refining your question)

Keep in mind the proper relationship between theory and literature. In general, we don’t want to ask if a theory is “in” a work of literature but rather we should ask how theory helps us understand a work of literature. The theory is the lens through which critics look at literary works. So, don’t ask if we can see Freudian theory in James Baldwin’s “Sonny’s Blues.” Ask instead how Freudian theory might help use understand the narrator’s psychological state, as in this question: “Is the narrator more interested in protecting himself than he is in protecting his brother? Can Freudian theory help us better understand his motives?”

Let’s watch Jada discuss how she evaluated the question she discussed in the last section:

Literature Research Strategies – Part 5 [3 min 19 sec]

Key Quote from the Video:

Is your question clear, complex and focused?

“So, when thinking about my research question and my thesis statement … one of the things that I tried to think about and I wish I would have thought about a little bit more, is, ‘is my thesis clear, complex and focused?’ And then the other part of that is, ‘is it arguable?’

The research question is really important of course, because you’re asking all these questions as you’re writing, and you’re gathering and you’re organizing, but the thesis statement kind of brings you back down to earth and kind of says, ‘okay, this is your argument, is it arguable? Is it clear? Is it focused? Are you saying something important? are you engaging?’

It’s important to have a complex research question and then also an arguable thesis statement, because once those two come together, you can have a more productive scholarly conversation … And you can shift the conversation in a different direction and bring a different light. Because as a writer, as a researcher, you’re bringing forth more evidence and more complex and different ideas that you maybe weren’t important before, weren’t relevant before.”

A key strategy is to avoid questions with easy ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers such as “Did ‘Sonny’s Blues’ contain autobiographical elements?” Probably yes. A more interesting question might be to ask how or why Baldwin worked autobiographical elements into “Sonny’s Blues.” Questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no generally end the discussion, and the goal of your research should be to continue the discussion by making an arguable claim. At the time Jada wrote her paper, her research question centered around why James Baldwin and “Sonny’s Blues” are still relevant today. However, now that we’ve been through the refining and evaluation process, we see that she could further narrow her question to focus on topics such as as urbanization, race, and addiction. For instance, how did urbanization after World War II affect the lives of black people? Did changes in urban life lead to more addiction among black people? What does Baldwin’s story teach us about these issues and what can we learn from them about urbanization, race, and addiction today?

As we discussed in the Scholarship as Conversation section, the problems addressed by Baldwin are largely unresolved; such unresolved problems continue to engage researchers from many fields. Jada could expand on what she started here by adding her personal perspective to her research in literature and sociology. Further work can be done by posing questions about the scholarly literature on Baldwin. For instance, Emmanual S. Nelson writes about the search for self-identity in Baldwin’s writing. [3] Nelson writes, “Baldwin suggests that one can achieve a genuine and liberating sense of self only through complete acceptance of one’s self, through loving commitment to another, and through identification with one’s community.” When that community is despised by the majority, then identifying with that community can produce “anguish” and “despair.” We might ask what happens when people resist identifying with their community. Do they engage in more self-destructing behaviors? To ask such questions is to follow up on the scholarly conversation put forth by Nelson. When we ask a question such as this, we address both Baldwin and Nelson in our research.

Move beyond your first question by asking a second question, a third question, and so on. The answer to your first question will have further implications; if X (is true), then Y (is implied). Your second question might be to ask about these implications. For instance, your first question might be about categories, such as categories of music in Baldwin’s story. Your second question can be about the function, history, and relationships of music in these categories. Your third question might be about Baldwin’s personal experience with these categories of music. Your fourth might be about the role these categories of music play in his story. Your fifth might be about the legacy of these music categories within black culture today. We can read about the uneasy relationship between black gospel music and more secular forms such as blues and jazz. How does this uneasiness play out in Baldwin’s life? In the story? In black culture today?

If you are still unsure if your question is refined enough, Wendy Belcher, author of  Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks,  suggests talking through your research question with a friend or advisor. She also suggests writing an abstract and sending it to a friend or advisor for review. Even when an abstract is not required for your assignment, consider writing one and soliciting feedback as Belcher suggests. Feedback can be invaluable since at this point you are looking for your moment to jump into the conversation.

In the “Back Matter” of this book, you will find a page titled “Rubrics.” In that page, we provide a rubric for the research question.

• What is your research question? Does it entail secondary (and tertiary) questions?
• Are you filling a gap or solving a problem? (Either is fine – just know which direction your research is going)
• Is your question loaded or leading? (If so, keep refining your question)
• Is your question too broad or narrow? (If so, keep refining your question)
• Is the scope of your project realistic and researchable within the given timeframe? (If not, keep refining your question)
• Do you have the tools &/or technology needed to accomplish your task? (If not, keep refining your question)
• “Will ‘Sonny’s Blues’ will help us solve the problem of racism today?”
• “Why should we teach ‘Sonny’s Blues’ in the classroom?”
• “Does ‘Sonny’s Blues’ encourage people to appreciate Black culture?”
• “How did ‘Sonny’s Blues’ change the conversation about race and addiction?”
• If you have read “Sonny’s Blues,” posit a research question that might work better than those above.
• If there are any elements of your assignment that need clarification, please list them.
• What was the most important lesson you learned from this page? What point was confusing or difficult to understand?

Creating a Research Question Rubric 

• In the “Back Matter” of this book, you will find a page titled “Rubrics.” On that page, we provide a rubric for Creating a Research Question ↵
• Association of College and Research Libraries. "Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education." 2016.  https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework ↵
• Nelson, Emmanuel S. “James Baldwin’s Vision of Otherness and Community.” MELUS, vol. 10, no. 2, 1983, pp. 27–31. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/467307. Accessed 20 Dec. 2023. ↵

Evaluating Your Research Question Copyright © 2021 by Barry Mauer and John Venecek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

84k Accesses

28 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

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

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Doing Research in the Real World

Student resources, multiple choice quiz.

Take the quiz to test your understanding of the key concepts covered in the chapter. Try testing yourself before you read the chapter to see where your strengths and weaknesses are, then test yourself again once you’ve read the chapter to see how well you’ve understood.

Tip: Click on each link to expand and view the content. Click again to collapse.

PART A: PRINCIPLES AND PLANNING FOR RESEARCH

1. Which of the following should not be a criterion for a good research project?

• Demonstrates the abilities of the researcher
• Is dependent on the completion of other projects
• Demonstrates the integration of different fields of knowledge
• Develops the skills of the researcher

b.  Is dependent on the completion of other projects

2. Which form of reasoning is the process of drawing a specific conclusion from a set of premises?

• Objective reasoning
• Positivistic reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Deductive reasoning

d:  Deductive reasoning

3. Research that seeks to examine the findings of a study by using the same design but a different sample is which of the following?

• An exploratory study
• A replication study
• An empirical study
• Hypothesis testing

b:  A replication study

4. A researcher designs an experiment to test how variables interact to influence job-seeking behaviours. The main purpose of the study was:

• Description
• Exploration
• Explanation

d:  Explanation

5. Cyber bullying at work is a growing threat to employee job satisfaction. Researchers want to find out why people do this and how they feel about it. The primary purpose of the study is:

c:  Exploration

6. A theory: 

• Is an accumulated body of knowledge
• Includes inconsequential ideas
• Is independent of research methodology
• Should be viewed uncritically

a:  Is an accumulated body of knowledge

7. Which research method is a bottom-up approach to research?

• Deductive method
• Explanatory method
• Inductive method
• Exploratory method

c:  Inductive method

8. How much confidence should you place in a single research study?

• You should trust research findings after different researchers have replicated the findings
• You should completely trust a single research study
• Neither a nor b
• Both a and b 

a:  You should trust research findings after different researchers have replicated the findings

9. A qualitative research problem statement:

• Specifies the research methods to be utilized
• Specifies a research hypothesis
• Expresses a relationship between variables
• Conveys a sense of emerging design

d:  Conveys a sense of emerging design

10. Which of the following is a good research question?

• To produce a report on student job searching behaviours
• To identify the relationship between self-efficacy and student job searching behaviours
• Students with higher levels of self-efficacy will demonstrate more active job searching behaviours
• Do students with high levels of self-efficacy demonstrate more active job searching behaviours?

d:  Do students with high levels of self-efficacy demonstrate more active job searching behaviours?

11. A review of the literature prior to formulating research questions allows the researcher to :

• Provide an up-to-date understanding of the subject, its significance, and structure
• Guide the development of research questions
• Present the kinds of research methodologies used in previous studies
• All of the above

d:  All of the above

12. Sometimes a comprehensive review of the literature prior to data collection is not recommended by:

• Ethnomethodology
• Grounded theory
• Symbolic interactionism
• Feminist theory

b:  Grounded theory

13. The feasibility of a research study should be considered in light of: 

• Cost and time required to conduct the study
• Access to gatekeepers and respondents
• Potential ethical concerns

14. Research that uses qualitative methods for one phase and quantitative methods for the next phase is known as:

• Action research
• Mixed-method research
• Quantitative research
• Pragmatic research

b:  Mixed-method research

15. Research hypotheses are:

• Formulated prior to a review of the literature
• Statements of predicted relationships between variables
• B but not A
• Both A and B

c:  B but not A

16. Which research approach is based on the epistemological viewpoint of pragmatism? 

• Qualitative research
• Mixed-methods research

c:  Mixed-methods research

17. Adopting ethical principles in research means: 

• Avoiding harm to participants
• The researcher is anonymous
• Deception is only used when necessary
• Selected informants give their consent

a:  Avoiding harm to participants

18. A radical perspective on ethics suggests that: 

• Researchers can do anything they want
• The use of checklists of ethical actions is essential
• The powers of Institutional Review Boards should be strengthened
• Ethics should be based on self-reflexivity

d:  Ethics should be based on self-reflexivity

19. Ethical problems can arise when researching the Internet because:

• Everyone has access to digital media
• Respondents may fake their identities
• Researchers may fake their identities
• Internet research has to be covert

b:  Respondents may fake their identities

20. The Kappa statistic: 

• Is a measure of inter-judge validity
• Compares the level of agreement between two judges against what might have been predicted by chance
• Ranges from 0 to +1
• Is acceptable above a score of 0.5

b:  Compares the level of agreement between two judges against what might have been predicted by chance

PART B: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY  

1. Which research paradigm is most concerned about generalizing its findings? 

a:  Quantitative research

2. A variable that is presumed to cause a change in another variable is called:

• An intervening variable
• A dependent variable
• An independent variable
• A numerical variable

c:  An independent variable

3. A study of teaching professionals posits that their performance-related pay increases their motivation which in turn leads to an increase in their job satisfaction. What kind of variable is ‘motivation”’ in this study? 

• Extraneous 
• Confounding
• Intervening
• Manipulated

c:  Intervening

4. Which correlation is the strongest? 

5. When interpreting a correlation coefficient expressing the relationship between two variables, it is important not to:

• Assume causality
• Measure the values for X and Y independently
• Choose X and Y values that are normally distributed
• Check the direction of the relationship

a:  Assume causality

6. Which of the following can be described as a nominal variable? 

• Annual income
• Annual sales
• Geographical location of a firm

d:  Geographical location of a firm

7. A positive correlation occurs when:

• Two variables remain constant
• Two variables move in the same direction
• One variable goes up and the other goes down
• Two variables move in opposite directions

b:  Two variables move in the same direction

8. The key defining characteristic of experimental research is that:

• The independent variable is manipulated
• Hypotheses are proved
• A positive correlation exists
• Samples are large

a:  The independent variable is manipulated

9. Qualitative research is used in all the following circumstances, EXCEPT:

• It is based on a collection of non-numerical data such as words and pictures
• It often uses small samples
• It uses the inductive method
• It is typically used when a great deal is already known about the topic of interest

d:  It is typically used when a great deal is already known about the topic of interest

10. In an experiment, the group that does not receive the intervention is called:

• The experimental group
• The participant group
• The control group
• The treatment group

c:  The control group

11. Which generally cannot be guaranteed in conducting qualitative studies in the field? 

• Keeping participants from physical and emotional harm
• Gaining informed consent
• Assuring anonymity rather than just confidentiality
• Maintaining consent forms

c:  Assuring anonymity rather than just confidentiality

12. Which of the following is not ethical practice in research with humans? 

• Maintaining participants’ anonymity
• Informing participants that they are free to withdraw at any time
• Requiring participants to continue until the study has been completed

d:  Requiring participants to continue until the study has been completed

13. What do we call data that are used for a new study but which were collected by an earlier researcher for a different set of research questions?

• Secondary data
• Field notes
• Qualitative data
• Primary data

a:  Secondary data

14. When each member of a population has an equal chance of being selected, this is called:

• A snowball sample
• A stratified sample
• A random probability sample
• A non-random sample

c:  A random probability sample

15. Which of the following techniques yields a simple random sample of hospitals?

• Randomly selecting a district and then sampling all hospitals within the district
• Numbering all the elements of a hospital sampling frame and then using a random number generator to pick hospitals from the table
• Listing hospitals by sector and choosing a proportion from within each sector at random
• Choosing volunteer hospitals to participate

b:  Numbering all the elements of a hospital sampling frame and then using a random number generator to pick hospitals from the table

16. Which of the following statements are true?

• The larger the sample size, the larger the confidence interval
• The smaller the sample size, the greater the sampling error
• The more categories being measured, the smaller the sample size
• A confidence level of 95 percent is always sufficient

b:  The smaller the sample size, the greater the sampling error

17. Which of the following will produce the least sampling error?

• A large sample based on convenience sampling 
• A small sample based on random sampling
• A large snowball sample
• A large sample based on random sampling

d:  A large sample based on random sampling

18. When people are readily available, volunteer, or are easily recruited to the sample, this is called:

• Snowball sampling
• Convenience sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Random sampling

b:  Convenience sampling

19. In qualitative research, sampling that involves selecting diverse cases is referred to as:

• Typical-case sampling
• Critical-case sampling
• Intensity sampling
• Maximum variation sampling

d:  Maximum variation sampling

20. A test accurately indicates an employee’s scores on a future criterion (e.g., conscientiousness).  What kind of validity is this?

a:  Predictive

PART C: DATA COLLECTION METHODS  

1. When designing a questionnaire it is important to do each of the following EXCEPT

• Pilot the questionnaire
• Avoid jargon
• Avoid double questions
• Use leading questions

d:  Use leading questions

2. One advantage of using a questionnaire is that:

• Probe questions can be asked
• Respondents can be put at ease
• Interview bias can be avoided
• Response rates are always high

c:  Interview bias can be avoided

3. Which of the following is true of observations?

• It takes less time than interviews
• It is often not possible to determine exactly why people behave as they do
• Covert observation raises fewer ethical concerns than overt

b:  It is often not possible to determine exactly why people behave as they do

4. A researcher secretly becomes an active member of a group in order to observe their behaviour. This researcher is acting as:

• An overt participant observer
• A covert non-participant observer
• A covert participant observer
• None of the above

c:  A covert participant observer

5. All of the following are advantages of structured observation, EXCEPT:

• Results can be replicated at a different time
• The coding schedule might impose a framework on what is being observed
• Data can be collected that participants may not realize is important
• Data do not have to rely on the recall of participants

b:  The coding schedule might impose a framework on what is being observed

6. When conducting an interview, asking questions such as: "What else? or ‘Could you expand on that?’ are all forms of:

• Structured responses
• Category questions

7. Secondary data can include which of the following? 

• Government statistics
• Personal diaries
• Organizational records

8. An ordinal scale is:

• The simplest form of measurement
• A scale with an absolute zero point
• A rank-order scale of measurement
• A scale with equal intervals between ranks

c:  A rank-order scale of measurement

9. Which term measures the extent to which scores from a test can be used to infer or predict performance in some activity? 

• Face validity
• Content reliability
• Criterion-related validity
• Construct validity

c:  Criterion-related validity

10. The ‘reliability’of a measure refers to the researcher asking:

• Does it give consistent results?
• Does it measure what it is supposed to measure?
• Can the results be generalized?
• Does it have face reliability?

a:  Does it give consistent results?

11. Interviewing is the favoured approach EXCEPT when:

• There is a need for highly personalized data
• It is important to ask supplementary questions
• High numbers of respondents are needed
• Respondents have difficulty with written language

c:  High numbers of respondents are needed

12. Validity in interviews is strengthened by the following EXCEPT:

• Building rapport with interviewees
• Multiple questions cover the same theme
• Constructing interview schedules that contain themes drawn from the literature
• Prompting respondents to expand on initial responses

b:  Multiple questions cover the same theme

13. Interview questions should:

• Lead the respondent
• Probe sensitive issues
• Be delivered in a neutral tone
• Test the respondents’ powers of memory

c:  Be delivered in a neutral tone

14. Active listening skills means:

• Asking as many questions as possible
• Avoiding silences
• Keeping to time
• Attentive listening

d:  Attentive listening

15. All the following are strengths of focus groups EXCEPT:

• They allow access to a wide range of participants
• Discussion allows for the validation of ideas and views
• They can generate a collective perspective
• They help maintain confidentiality

d:  They help maintain confidentiality

16. Which of the following is not always true about focus groups?

• The ideal size is normally between 6 and 12 participants
• Moderators should introduce themselves to the group
• Participants should come from diverse backgrounds
• The moderator poses preplanned questions

c:  Participants should come from diverse backgrounds

17. A disadvantage of using secondary data is that:

• The data may have been collected with reference to research questions that are not those of the researcher
• The researcher may bring more detachment in viewing the data than original researchers could muster
• Data have often been collected by teams of experienced researchers
• Secondary data sets are often available and accessible

a:  The data may have been collected with reference to research questions that are not those of the researcher

18. All of the following are sources of secondary data EXCEPT:

• Official statistics
• A television documentary
• The researcher’s research diary
• A company’s annual report

c:  The researcher’s research diary

19. Which of the following is not true about visual methods?

• They are not reliant on respondent recall
• The have low resource requirements
• They do not rely on words to capture what is happening
• They can capture what is happening in real time

b:  The have low resource requirements

20. Avoiding naïve empiricism in the interpretation of visual data means:

• Understanding the context in which they were produced
• Ensuring that visual images such as photographs are accurately taken
• Only using visual images with other data gathering sources
• Planning the capture of visual data carefully

a:  Understanding the context in which they were produced

PART D: ANALYSIS AND REPORT WRITING  

1. Which of the following is incorrect when naming a variable in SPSS?

• Must begin with a letter and not a number
• Must end in a full stop
• Cannot exceed 64 characters
• Cannot include symbols such as ?, & and %

b:  Must end in a full stop

2. Which of the following is not an SPSS Type variable?

3. A graph that uses vertical bars to represent data is called:

• A bar chart
• A pie chart
• A line graph
• A vertical graph

a:  A bar chart

4. The purpose of descriptive statistics is to:

• Summarize the characteristics of a data set
• Draw conclusions from the data

a:  Summarize the characteristics of a data set

5. The measure of the extent to which responses vary from the mean is called:

• The normal distribution
• The standard deviation
• The variance

c:  The standard deviation

6. To compare the performance of a group at time T1 and then at T2, we would use:

• A chi-squared test
• One-way analysis of variance
• Analysis of variance
• A paired t-test

d:  A paired t-test

7. A Type 1 error occurs in a situation where:

• The null hypothesis is accepted when it is in fact true
• The null hypothesis is rejected when it is in fact false
• The null hypothesis is rejected when it is in fact true
• The null hypothesis is accepted when it is in fact false

c:  The null hypothesis is rejected when it is in fact true

8. The significance level

• Is set after a statistical test is conducted
• Is always set at 0.05
• Results in a p -value
• Measures the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis

d:  Measures the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis

9. To predict the value of the dependent variable for a new case based on the knowledge of one or more independent variables, we would use

• Regression analysis
• Correlation analysis
• Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

a:  Regression analysis

10. In conducting secondary data analysis, researchers should ask themselves all of the following EXCEPT:

• Who produced the document?
• Is the material genuine?
• How can respondents be re-interviewed?
• Why was the document produced?

c:  How can respondents be re-interviewed?

11. Which of the following are not true of reflexivity?

• It recognizes that the researcher is not a neutral observer
• It has mainly been applied to the analysis of qualitative data
• It is part of a post-positivist tradition
• A danger of adopting a reflexive stance is the researcher can become the focus of the study

c:  It is part of a post-positivist tradition

12. Validity in qualitative research can be strengthened by all of the following EXCEPT:

• Member checking for accuracy and interpretation
• Transcribing interviews to improve accuracy of data
• Exploring rival explanations
• Analysing negative cases

b:  Transcribing interviews to improve accuracy of data

13. Qualitative data analysis programs are useful for each of the following EXCEPT: 

• Manipulation of large amounts of data
• Exploring of the data against new dimensions
• Querying of data
• Generating codes

d:  Generating codes

14. Which part of a research report contains details of how the research was planned and conducted?

• Introduction

b:  Design 

15. Which of the following is a form of research typically conducted by managers and other professionals to address issues in their organizations and/or professional practice?

• Basic research
• Professional research
• Predictive research

a:  Action research

16. Plagiarism can be avoided by:

• Copying the work of others accurately
• Paraphrasing the author’s text in your own words
• Cut and pasting from the Internet
• Quoting directly without revealing the source

b:  Paraphrasing the author’s text in your own words

17. In preparing for a presentation, you should do all of the following EXCEPT:

• Practice the presentation
• Ignore your nerves
• Get to know more about your audience
• Take an advanced look, if possible, at the facilities

b:  Ignore your nerves

18. You can create interest in your presentation by:

• Using bullet points
• Reading from notes
• Maximizing the use of animation effects
• Using metaphors

d:  Using metaphors

19. In preparing for a viva or similar oral examination, it is best if you have:

• Avoided citing the examiner in your thesis
• Made exaggerated claims on the basis of your data
• Published and referenced your own article(s)
• Tried to memorize your work

c:  Published and referenced your own article(s)

20. Grounded theory coding:

• Makes use of a priori concepts from the literature
• Uses open coding, selective coding, then axial coding
• Adopts a deductive stance
• Stops when theoretical saturation has been reached

d:  Stops when theoretical saturation has been reached

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• About Mild TBI and Concussion
• After a Mild TBI or Concussion
• Health Disparities in TBI
• Comparing Head Impacts
• Clinical Guidance
• Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Management Guideline
• Resources for Health Care Providers

Traumatic Brain Injury & Concussion

About Moderate and Severe TBI

Preventing TBI

Symptoms of Mild TBI and Concussion

Where to Get Help

Facts About TBI

For Medical Professionals

Clinical Guidance for Pediatric mTBI

Health Care Provider Resources

CDC Programs

HEADS UP Online Training Courses

National Concussion Surveillance System

Core State Injury Prevention Program (Core SIPP)

A traumatic brain injury, or TBI, is an injury that affects how the brain works. TBI is a major cause of death and disability in the United States.

For Everyone

Health care providers.