All activities within the writing process are iterative: that is, you have to go through multiple versions (i.e., iterations) of what you're producing in order to improve it. In fact, your research questions may continue to evolve even once the research is underway. Such evolution is normal, so don't panic if you start to doubt your hypothesis halfway through writing up your work. Instead, use your growing knowledge base and new insights to make informed changes to your question(s) or hypothes(es).
Below, we'll work through some examples of ways that research questions might shift or be improved.
It is essential that you can clearly develop an argument from the hypothesis or question that you pose. Avoid generalisations that are not possible to substantiate, for example...
Bad: The relationship between humanity and nature.
What is this trying to talk about? It could cover so many different topics and subjects that it needs to be much more focused. A better question would target specific relations between humanity and nature, for example...
Better example: Has humanity overcome the threat of earthquakes through its specially engineered buildings?
Let's return to the question above and consider the type of answer that its phrasing invites:
Has humanity overcome the threat of earthquakes through its specially engineered buildings?
In this case, the wording used encourages a response of either 'yes' or 'no' – either 'yes,' humanity has overcome the threat entirely (hurrah!), or 'no,' engineering has done nothing to stop the threat (boo!). However, the situation is surely more complex than that. A yes/no framing is therefore a poor foundation for the research, as it might compel the writer to sacrifice critical nuance in favour of a straightforward answer.
What if the writer were instead to consider phrasing options like these?
To what extent do specially engineered buildings mitigate the threat of earthquakes in major cities?
Which innovations in building design have proved most effective in reducing human casualties during earthquakes?
How can buildings be reengineered to minimise the threat to life posed by earthquakes?
These iterations of the question might not be perfect, but notice how they encourage greater complexity of response. The writer has moved away from a yes/no framing to instead pose questions that will allow richer, more layered answers to be explored in the body of the essay or project.
In short, yes – this is sometimes okay. However, you should treat any yes/no question with caution. In many cases, a yes/no question functions better when paired with or embedded within a question of more nuanced phrasing. For example...
Could polymer XYZ be replaced with polymer ABC in the manufacture of technology Q? If so, what implications exist for the cost and longevity of the final product?
Here, the first question is yes/no in nature – and for some assessment types, it might be sufficient! However, the second question builds upon the first to add more depth and relevance.
In many cases, research questions must be refined not because they are 'bad' or problematic, but instead due to either 1) evolution of interests/knowledge or 2) change(s) in research circumstances. The prior can loosely be understood as internally driven whilst the latter is externally driven. The examples below illustrate how these shifts might look in practice.
Sam plans to critically evaluate the TV show The Walking Dead through the lens of disability theory in their dissertation. They begin the project with a set of related research questions that includes this one:
How do depictions of facial differences (e.g. scars, burns) in The Walking Dead reinforce – or alternately, subvert – the damaging trope of the 'Disabled Villain'?
This question operates well alongside Sam's other enquiries/hypotheses, and they make a strong start on their research. However, the deeper Sam gets into their analysis, the more they find themself writing about the show's depictions of amputations and prostheses rather than facial differences. Therefore, Sam decides to revise the focal question as so:
To what extent does loss of limbs operate as a metaphor for change to internal character throughout The Walking Dead, and do these depictions cumulatively serve to reify or subvert persistent tropes of disability in filmed media?
In this manner, Sam refined their research question to respond to an evolution of interest as well as their expanding knowledge of the source material. The 'detour' was internal as Sam didn't technically need to change directions, but by realigning the question with what they are actually curious about, the resulting dissertation will surely be richer.
The more panic-inducing 'detours' are those compelled by external change over which the writer has little or no control. Circumstantial changes that might impact the feasibility of your research question(s) include things like the following (click each dropdown heading to see examples):
A change to the feasibility of your method(ology) doesn't always mean you need to abandon your research question(s). If your question relates to the concept of customer satisfaction, for example, there could be many valid ways to measure and interpret that central concept.
If a circumstantial change pushes your plan off course, think creatively and think widely about potential solutions. And if this happens whilst tackling your dissertation or thesis, contact your supervisor ASAP to arrange a meeting.
Finally, understand that you may need to ask (and answer) additional questions in order to address your central question: this is especially true of dissertations and theses. Think of these additional enquiries as sub-questions. Let's return to Sam's original research question from earlier:
How do depictions of facial differences (e.g. scars, burns) in The Walking Dead reinforce – or alternately, subvert – the damaging trope of the 'Disabled Villain'?
This is phrased as one question, but let's slow down and consider how Sam can satisfactorily answer that central question. To provide rich, nuanced answers, Sam might actually need to ask a series of questions that build upon one another:
Sam won't necessarily use the same method or approach to answer each question. For instance...
Therefore, as you refine your research question, consider building out a mind map or bulleted list of the implied questions that underpin your main enquiry. Making these sub-questions explicit in the writing can help ensure the research proceeds in a logical way from A to B, B to C, etc.
