The
problem of the problem
Though the
choice of problem is the most important decision each researcher makes, it is
really a gamble! There is no certain way of telling at the outset wheter the
investment of time, energy, and resources will yield any return- with luck, a
reputation can be made. But is it luck that some persons are known as good
researchers? No more so than that some people can make an honest living from
the stock market, generally win at cards, oe beat the odds at a racetrack.
There has been
little research on problem finding, but what there is suggests that some
individuals are consistently better at it than others ( Getzels, 1982). All of
us know individuals who are particularly creative; I have known some from whom
I got a good idea every time I talked with them. But osborn and others invilved
with industrial trainning have data that suggest that creativity can be
increased (Osborn, 1959; Parnes, 1967). Therefore, most of us can benefit from
advice.
Clearly, some
individuals improve their odds of being successful by combining knowledge of
the situation with their ability to recognize an oppurtinity and by carrying
thought into action. Indeed, studies in the past have shown that relatively few
researchers account for the bulk of useful work; 10% of scientists accounts for
fully 50% of published research, and 10 % of published research accounts for
40% of the citations in books and articles (Pletz, 1965; Price, 1963). There is
little reason to believe the current situation differs. So often in reading
research we find that it focuses on something in a familiar situation to which
we hadn’t paid attention earlier. We might have noticed it, but to our regret,
we did not act on it as the author had. Modifying such behaviors, as well as
learning some of the behaviors that enhance problem- finding capacity, will
improve research capabilities.
How can this
book help with a creative process thay by its very defenition defies being tied
to formulas or routine processes? We can describe behavior and activities
characteristic of productive researchers and suggest some creativity
enhancement techniques. You can then choose the behaviors that seem personally
effective. Further, we can describe the criteria of a good problems so that
when one appears, you will recognize it. Finally, we can note the kinds of
problems that are not amenable to research methods. These topics outline the
plan of this chapter.
Problem
finding and research method
Some persons
prefer to find a problem, get it well defined, proceed to gather data, analyze
it, and write it up. Each step follows from the next in a deductive sequence.
Research is often visualized in this way. Although a deductive stance can be
used with any research method, it is usually associated with the quantitative
method. Individuals who adopt this way of working start with considerable time
invested in problem finding, problem redefinition, and the literature search (
the topic of the next chapter). As we have previously noted, others researchers
prefer to immerse themselves in a situation of interest and let the research
project emerge as they explore what is there. This is an inductive approach
that is usually associated with qualitative research but can in fact be used
with any method. Data collection can begin as soon as what might be called an
“orienting question” is identified- one that focuses and directs our attention,
although that focus can be quite broad. It may be simply a situation of
interest. In the Hoffman- Riem study presented in chapter 2, the problem began
as “how parents view adoption” and ended up as “how adoptive parents normalize
their lives.”
Incidentally,
for most of us, research method follows problame choice. Once we know what to
study, we adapt it to method of investigation with which we personally feel
comfortable. Novice researchers often work through the details of method before
they are clear on what the problem is. Working back and forth between problem
and method is fine if you don’t go too far method before the problem is clear.
To a certain extent, working on method helps formulate the problem, and vice
versa. It is an iterative process.
The heading
“problem finding” suggest that it is a one-time process
that a problem, once defined at the outset, does not change. Nothing could be further
from the truth. In qualitative methods, problem findings is a continuous
process. There is possibility of the problem’s being redefined right up through
data analysis. This is also true quantitative methods. If something new and
interesting shows up in data analysis, the whole focus of the problem can
shift, sometimes to a phenomenon quite different from the study’s original one.
But even if it doesn’t shift, problem redefinition usually continues into the
final stages of the study. This doesnot show in the report of the study, it is
writtennas a deductive chain of reasoning. But such reformulation is frequently
an important part of the research process. After all only as completion of the
study informs us sufficently about the phenomenon do we understand the really
important questions to ask.
·
Problem finding and the redefinition
of the problem and its focus are continuing processes.
·
The best questions often become known
only at the end of the research, when the phenomenon is better understood.
·
Inductive or deductive approaches can
be used with any methods. The relation of problem finding to data collection
and analysis is typically a function of method.
·
In the typical case, a clear
conception of the problem emerges earlier in quantitative methods than in
qualitative methods, where it is sometimes delayed into the data-analysis
stage.
|
We shall
describe behaviors characteristic of productive researchers. These points are
drawn from autobiographies of researchers, from observation, and from the
advice of people who have studied creativity.
Filling The Mind With The Best Possible Relevant Method
Filling
the mind the with rhe most relevant material from one’s area of interest is one
of the very best ways to find a good problem. This allows the unconscious mind
to process the material. The unconscious is an amazing tool. While we are
sleeping or working on other things, it recognizes the material and presents us
with insights that often escape us when we are too wrapped up in achieving a
goal.but the unconscious must have something to process, hence the necessity
for a prepaared mind.
Discovery
favors the prepared mind. As a child, you knew your backyard, alley, or room
better than anybody. You proudly showed parents or siblings things to which they
had never paid attention- an interestingly shaped hole, a place where some
animal lived, a spot that formed the silhouette of a person significant in your
life. Such knowledge comes from long, intimate contact with the situation.
Research is no different; there is no substitute for knowing the territory.
Fleming’s discovery of penicilin was accidental, but his prior work prepared
him to recognize the breakthrough when it appeared. He noticed that his
bacterial cultures seemed nt to grow where there was mold on the plate and
wondered why this occured. No doubt this had happened to other investigators.
Fleming, however, being curious and having worked intensenly with bacterial
cultures, asked why and, acting on that query, made an important discovery.
Have you
had experience or learning a new word that you thought was quite rare? Once you
learned it, you were surprised at how often you heard it there after! It must
have been there before; it is matter of the prepared mind. So dig into what is
already known about a phenomenon; immerse youeself in the literature and
explore each of its important facets. If that does not suggest the desire
research problem, you will be sufficiently familiar with the area that when the
unsual appears, you can recognize and act on it.
Read
the writings of the seminal minds in the field. Productive scientists seem to
read more deeply into the historical background of their problem. They read the original versions, not digests, of
the minds in the field. Often those minds will have sensed something that was
not well enough understood in their time to explain clearly. In other instance,
they look a problem as far as they could at the time, but now you could take it
further. Reading such accounts against the background of what has happened more
recently often gives a new and useful perspective and meaning. For instance,
Campbell and Stanle (1963), who made important contributions to understanding
social science experimentation, start with a tribute to W. A.MmcCall (1923),
whose then 40 year old book described many of the concept they use in their
exposition.
Behaviors that enhance problem finding
include these:
·
Filling the mind with the
best possible relevant material, discovery favors a mind prepared to
recognizes the unsual aspects of a field.
·
Reading the writings of the
seminal minds in the field, both past and present.
·
Delving into the historical
background of the problem to learn which approaches have and have not proved
fruitful.
|
Breaking The Mind Set
We
have all been exposed to problems that require us to think about them
differently in order to solve them. Remember
the game of passing the scissors? One person passes scissors to another,
saying, “I’m passing it to you crossed” or “I’m passing it to you uncrossed”.
Players unfamiliar with the game are puzzled; no matter hoe they position the
scissors, they can do it correctly only by accident, if at all. They are
concentrating on the scissors. Only when they realize that crossed or uncrossed
refers to the position of the person’s legs when the scissors are passed do
they break the mind set of concentrating on the scissors. Breaking the
mind-set, viewing an area or a problem differently, is often the secret to an
important piece of research. The following area often useful mindset breaking
tools.
Read
actively (Anticipate the Author; Don’t just follow passively). Active reading
is one of the most important skills to develop. Anticapte where the material is
going; project the argument that is being fashioned instead of passively following
it. We process what we read some throughly if we underline or make marginal
comments. This reduces reading speed and allows time to think ahead to where
the argument is going. As we foresee what is coming, we will often find that
the author zigs where we zagged. If our logic
is correct to that point, why the zig ? Here is a question worth
pondering; a zig might have been a more profitble course to follow. We have to
retrace our steps carefully to be sure, but many new leads are discovered by
active reading.
Along
these same lines, actively search for inconsistencies in the argument. Look for
graps where existing ideas do not adequetly account for the phenomena. This may
call for revision of existing explanation or even for new ones. For example,
Merton (1959) notes that regularities in cultural behavior are typically
thought to result from prescriptions by cultural norms. Yes, he notes. “Men
have higher suicide rates than women,
for example, even when the cultural norms do not invite males to put an end tp
themselves”. Apparently, there are regularaties that result from something
besides cultural norms, and the concept of cultural norms must be reworked to
specify what kind of behavior lies beyond them.
Talk
to specialists in the field. Experts who have worked in a field for a long time
have built up their own conceptions from their experiences. Although
researchers who havr compared the problem solving of experts and novices note
little difference in strategies, they find a difference in the repertory of
experiences organized in long- term memory. Chase and simon’s (1973) study of
chese players illustrates this nicely. Grandmasters nad masters were asked to
reconstruct the positions of 22 chese
pieces after viewing them for five seconds. When the positions were taken from
actual games, experts could piece 81 percent of them without error, wheares
novices could correctly position only 33 percent. But when pieces were arranged
at random, experts were no better than novices, placing only three to five pieces
correctly. Experts apparently identified games in terms of patterns they had
learned or experinced instead of memorizing the position of individual pieces.
But note the specificity of thier knowledge, their capibilities would not apply
to another subject matter. Research in this field suggests that these long-term
memory patterns are subject-matter-specific, so choose an expert in your field.
If you
ask specialists to tell you about the problem or area, they may, to communicate
easily with you, fall back on textbook formulations. Instead, try your ideas on
them so that they can see your problem through your framework. They may be able
to react to it intuitively in terms of their experience- especially in
reconceptualizing the problem and in making connections to other areas of work
that may not be readily apparent. Experts are also useful sources of pertinent
things to read (despite the advances in computer searches, the human mind is
still the best retrieval device-see the comment regarding invisible colleges on
p. 114 for ways to tap it).
Assess
the experts’ reactions carefully, however. Some persons discourage creative
ideas that weren’t original with them. And some, for what ever reason, often
back of time, may not grasp your problem and react superficially. With these
caveats in mind, you will find that experts can be extremely valuable and save
you much time, especially by helping you avoid false and uproductive leads.
Challenge
Assumptions. When reading past research, examine the assumptions on which the
arguments are based. Are they reasonable? Could we make less restrictive ones?
What would be the result? If we change the assumptions, does this lead to
different consequence? Consider the problem of the mentally handicapped. If we
assume that they learn essentially as does everyone else, but more slowly, then
given sufficient time and motivation, they could achieve normally. The
sequences of this view are to give the individuals more time, to isolate them
in classes where the competation is less intense, and to motivate them to
achieve. A different assumptions is that the conceptual structures into which
they fit what they learn are not the complex ones that others can use. This
assumptions leads to the search for simplified conceptual structures they can
learn that will result in learning approximating that of more normal children.
Examining the assumptions about why slow learners are handicapped results in
quite different consequences for remediation, each of which can be tested for
validity
Look
for new ways to Tease the problem apart. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman suggests
a trick for questions about behavior that he claims derived from Lewinian
psychology. Instead of asking “ why does a person behave this way? “ he asks,
“why doesn’t he behave otherwise?” instead of asking why a person is hostile in
a particular setting, he asks, “ why isn’t he more hostile?” “ why isn’t he
less hostile ? “ the kinds of answers made available by this reformulation are
radically different from those derived from “ Why is he hostile?” it may be
much easier to remove the factors driving him to greater hostility and
uncovered by the question “ Why isn’t he less hostile?” than to suppress the
hostile behavior by manipulating forces that push him to be less hostile than
he was. Sometimes it also helps to swttch the focus of attention consciously
from the result to process of getting there.
Another
way of teasing the problem apart is to look for concepts that have not been
effective in diffrentiating important aspects of a phonemenon. Merton (1959)
notes that concepts used to describe a phenomenon have often taken us as far as
they will stretch. We need new concepts and new differentiations to take us
further. For example, at one time, psychology talked about self concepts as though
it were a single entity; one felt positively or negatively about oneself.
Later, we came realize there are different self-concepts and that we can talk
about a self- concept of ability (one’s capibility in solving academic
problems) and even self- concept in different subject matters. Thus the term
self-concept has come to be highly differentiated, and there are now several
books available dealing with these different meaning.
Breaking our initial view of a problem,
our mind- set, is often critical to problem finding. The likelihood of
breaking a mind-set is greater if we follow these suggestions.
·
Read actively, anticipating
where the author is heading.
·
Analyze the approach the
author is using and synthesize it with that of other’s and our own prior knoewledge.
·
Challenge the assumptions
that undergird a particular approach to a problem.
·
For concepts that do not
adequately differentiate their important aspects, look for new ways to ask
the question that better target the area of interest.
|
Harness
the Unconscious. There comes a point when we have read enough to have a flavor
of what has been done, but new approaches have not suggested themselves. Here
it is well to recognize that our minds do not always do their best work when we
are consciously pushing at a problem. William Safire gives the first rule of
holes: “ when you are in a hole, stop digging!” Then let the unconscious mind
take over.
Poincare
(1913) concluded that the unconscious mind collates and sorts random
possibilities among pertinent variables at a rate that defies the efforts of
the conscious mind.
We
must all find our best means of commanding the muse, but the unconcious is an
important resource too rarely emphasized. Some people are helped by
daydreaming, a reverie in which the mind floats over the problem, rejecting no
possibilities. Some adopt a kind of half- awake, half- asleep posture. Still
others get their best ideas at night and keep paper and pencil at hand to
record ideas immediately, lest they be unable to retrieve their thoughts upon
becoming fully awake. Whatever your means, use the unconscious; it is one of
the most powerful tools of creativity available.
Organize
material into suggestive patterns. There are many ways of doing this, using the
themes suggested earlier of filling the mind; letting the unconscious work on
it and then analyzing and synthesizing the products; and repeating this cycle
untill a satisfictory solution is found. One set of steps outlined by Zwicky
(1969) extend what Allen (1962) called morphological analysis:
1. Without evaluation, transfer all the material about the problem onto
cards (3-by-5-inch cards cut in half are a good size)- ideas for solving the
problem, achievements desired, names of persons involved, books that might be
consulted, and so on.
2. Diregarding order, lay the cards out in blocks three cards wide and
four cards deep. Read the cards rapidly four or five times; this transfers the
ideas into your subconscious mind. For the next half hour or so, leave the
cards and occupy your mind as completely as possible with others matters.
3. Study the cards and categorize them into friendly or congenial
groups. Five hundred cards might reduce to 20 or 30 such groups. Place a little
card in a distinguishing color on each group; we’ll call each group a ‘ compenent’.
4. Treat each component as you did steps 2 and 3, reducing to four to
seven groups by creating more inclusive categories with titles we’ll call
“parameters.” ( Was it enhance that Zwicky chose seven things at a time).
5. Reduce the number of components in each parameter to seven or fewer.
Prioritizing of parameters or compenents may be necessary to reduce the
possibilities to a manageable number.
6. List each parameter, followed by its components, on a separate strip
of paper, and move the strips alongside one another to suggest different
combinations from which solutions may emerge.
Having
such a model to follow may have value in that all the possible options are
covered. Elstein, Shulman, and Sprafka (1978, 1990) have shown that in medical
problem solving, having a model, or heuristic, to follow increases
effectiveness.
Reduce
the censorship of ideas. What is typically called “brainstorming” involves
admitting possibilities for examination that would normally be rejected by
typical problem- solving processes. Popularized by Osborn (1959), it consists
of assembling a group of people to attack the problem with four basic rules of
interactions:criticism is ruled out, freewheeling is welcomed, quantity is
wanted, and combination and improvment of previous suggestions are sought. At
once time a fad, this technique is still
useful. It may lead to time consuming consideration of impossible suggestions
yet may free individual to consider desireable ones that would otherwise have
been discarded. It is sometime particularly useful to think of anlogies, such
as “ how is this phenomenon like animal?” once the bulk of the ideas has
emerged, they are sifted to select the best ones for further development.
Sometimes these, in turn, become the focus of brainstorming sessions and the
process is repeated.
Creativity is on essential ingredient of
good problem finding. Creativity may be enhanced by employing these three
topics:
1. Hornessing the unconscious, one of the most powerful of all the
craetivity tools.
2. Organizing the material into patterns that are suggestive of
relation- ships.
3. Using “brainstorming” or a similar technique under which the
censorship of ideas is reduced: permit not criticism, seek the largest number
of ideas, and evaluate for quality only at the end of the activity.
|
Formulating The Problem as a written statement
Trying
to set down our thoughts involved both clarifying and organizating. As Merton
(1959) puts it, try formulating questions that register our “ dimly felt sense
of ignorance “. Writing enforces a discipline that helps articulate half-formed
ideas. Something happens between the formation of an idea and its appreance on
paper, a latency that somehow results in the clarification and untangling of
our thinking. Writig helps bring unconscious processing to light as articulated
synthesized statements- just what we are seeking! When we are reading widely,
we cram the ideas into our memory, often without checking them against what is
already there; even contradictory material may exist side by side. Writing
makes us confront these internal inconsistencies and put together
relationships.
What
struck me about this passage was the italicized sentence. It is so typical of
good writers that even when blocked, they persist with provisioanal tries,
seeking to formulate what they are after. Schweitzer “ covered sheet after
sheet with disconected sentences “ untill he succeeded. The problem doesn’t
always yield, but the effort is worth making.
Slowing
the writing process may help with difficult formulation. I can type when I know
what I want to write, but I must write with a pen when I’m struggling, and as a
last resort, a fountain pen seems to work better than a ballpoint. Note that
each method takes progressively longer to form the words on paper. I can hold
longer internal discussions with my self about what comes next, do a memory
search for the right concept a word, and still get it down without unduly
interupting the flow of thought. This important. Poor writers are often so
taken up with grammar, spelling, or even forming words that their thinking may
be interrupted to the point where they have difficulty remembering where their
sentence was going.
In the
preface we noted that internal processing is the name of the game, processing
that results in “chunking” material into meaningful collections. The networking
of these chunks makes connections that bring to mind new material. Further, the
“chunks” of experts are larger and more complex than those of novices. Artists
seem to have learned this process intuitively since they often spend large
amounts of time practicing and reherasing their material before producing a
masterpiece. Sinclair Lewis developed notebooks that describe his characters
and their complete setting before he wrote a novel- their personalities, what
they wore, even maps of the community and floor plans of the buildings. Did he
refer to the notebooks when writing? I don’t know, but I suspect that advance
rehearsal chunked this material so effectively that he had little need to.
Similarly, before Andrew Wyeth did has Helga pictures, sketch after sketch was
discarded on the floor, some of which he even proceeded to walk on. They were
chunks tranferred to his mind for use in later drawings. Darwin carefully
indexed the books he read and organized the material into portfolios that he
consulted at the beginning of each new project (Steiner, 1984).
So
everyone uses chunks in problem solving, and the best writers and thinkers find
that it takes work and time to build those chunks and their relational network.
Maybe that is one of the differences between the greats and the not-so-greata:
the willingsness to do the work that is involved in building and relating the
chunks that go into a masterwork.
Explaining
Ideas to Other People
Similar to
writing is trying to explain our ideas to someone else, ideally an uninformed
but intelligent observer. It is said that the best way to learn something is to
teach it. In trying to communicate clearly with someone who is unfamiliar with
your area of expertise, an idea must be formulated with a clarity that makes no
assumptions and avoids jargon. In starting at the beginning new in to explain a
concept, you may recognize aspects thatt you take so much for granted that they
escaped your focus. Eximanation of those assumptions may provide new insights
and lead to ways of reconfiguring the quetion or problem. But talking isn’t
enough; you must get everything down in writing while it is still fresh and you
are still enthusiastic about the idea! You’ll write much better sooner than
later; indeed, later you may have difficulty in recapturing the idea.
Problem
perspective is enhanced if we see material from a different angle or in a
different context. This can intelligent observer can do better than we can for
ourselves. When we are close to a problem and emotionally involved in it, we
miss things that are abvious to a naive observer. An observer can maintain
psychological distance from the problem. Scheerer (1963), for example, assigned
subjects randomly as observers and workers. The workers were to solve a problem
that required use of a missing piece of string. A string that they could use
was present in the form of a hanger for a wall calender. Only half of the
workers- but all of the observers- broke the mind-set of the problem.
Talking with
others also may restore a sense of excitement and sometimes competition.
Determining the structure of DNA was a race between Watson’s Cambridge
Laboratory and others, among them Linus Pauling’s at the University of
California. A sense of competation was heightened through a visit of Pauling’s
son to discuss their parallel progress (Watson 1968).
Making provisional tries at formulating a problem
in spoken or, especially, written form is a very useful behavior in problem
formulation, for four reasons:
1.
It makes available the articulated and
synthesized realtionships formed by the unconscious.
2.
It facilitates the “chunking” of
material and the networking of those
chunks. Building the chunks of an expert takes time and effort but is
probably one of the major contributors to excellent work.
3.
It provides material to which an
observer can react from a different perspective and without one’s own
emotional biases and pre- conceptions.
4.
Interaction with others not only may
provide new insights but may also restore a sense of excitement.
|
Other
Useful Suggestions
Learn your most productive working conditions.
Become aware of the conditions that make you productive. For instance, there is
probably an optimal level of motivation. At a higher level, you may be unable
to stay focusd long enough to allow patterns to be perceived. Administrators,
in particular, are inclined to think that if a little motivation is good, more
must be better; this is not necessarily so.
Where and when
you work can be important. Find a place without too many distractions. Many
productive writers set aside a regular time for writing, staying at it during
that period with provisional tries, whether they are blocked or not.
Patterns of
writing are particularly likely to be unique to each person. Outlining used to
be considered a since qua non by many english teachers. Neil simon, the famous
playwright, was advised to try it :
“
I tried to make it go that way. It wouldn’t! I did it 20 times! That is not the
way to write a play.............Because that is not the way life is. You don’t
know what the end is going to be so you don’t twist and push it. It just
carries you along, somehow, predetermined by your character.” (Rosner And Abt).
Clearly,
outlining was not for him, not may it be for others, but there is some pattern
that is better for each of us, and we must find it.
Don’t close the
problem defenition too quickly. Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976) found the
most creative solutions among artists who kept the problem open longer. They
suggest that solutions must be disovered by interaction with the elements that
constitute it- mucking around in the problem. Superficial solutions are also
likelier to be rejected if closure is delayed.
When having
trouble focusing, move to basic questions.
Research problems frequently grow out of the common interests or
annoyances of daily work. But this often forces the researcher to look for
solutions where too little is known about the phenomenon. For example, in
trying to get a focus on the problem of how to induce teachers to engage in
in-service training, a researcher chooses teacher centers. But what to study
about such centers? He could wander over many different aspects of them with no
more guidance than that. In such instances, it helps to ask more basic
questions; why do teachers seek training in the first place? What purposes does
it serve besides improved teaching? Does
it enhance social functions, pay improvement, chances for leadership? These
begin to approach in- service training from a coherent viewpoint about the
purpose it serves; we can then begin to think more reasonably about designing
teacher centers around those purposes. Every problem is part of a casual chain
as described in the first few pages on chapter 12. Sometimes it helps to work backward
in the causal to earlier stages.
Trim away your
entry to a problem as soon as it no longer fits. When the development of a
human fetus is traced, there is always cinsiderable surprise that it seems to
go through all the developmental stages of a previous evolution, for example,
developing useless gills, which then atrophy and become something else. As
problem statements developmental history, recapitulating useless aspects that
no longer contribute to the current problem. It is useful to us in that it
retraces our thinking and gets us in to the problem. But sometimes it is simply
excess baggage. Other people can usually see this more easily that we can. It
also is more apparent after the passage of time. The sooner this excess
material is trimmed away, tho stronger and more clearly we can develop the
problem.
Some individuals
find themselves rewriting the introduction to their problem every time they
leave the work for a period of time. Not only is this likely to result in an
introduction that needs to be trimmed, but it tends to be unproductive labor.
Write where you are ready to write rather than writing linearly. You’ll have to
work to fit the pireces together, but you are less likely to be blocked. Rather
than leaving the work at a point where a section is complete, stop at a point
that cries out for completion and you know what you plan to do next. It will be
easier to pick up at that point.
Suggestions for enhancing problem finding include
these:
·
Learn the conditions under which you
are most productive.
·
Keep the problem definition open and
fluid until you are satisfied with the way it has been shaped.
·
Move back to basic questions about a
phenomenon if you are having trouble focusing.
·
Trim away old entry statements to the
problem so that the current one can be developed clearly and forcefully.
|
Potential
sources of research problems
Draw
suggestions from other people’s research
A review of the
literature in an area of interest is the most common way to search for a
problem. In reading the literature, examine the suggestions for further
research in articles, at the end of dissertations, in critiques of other
people’s research, and especially in reseach reviews. Research reviews may
provide only the most obvious question, but their authors are in an especially
good position to give an overall perspective. Good questions are likelier to be
encountered than full-blown research suggestions. Remember, the more you know
about an area, the more questions you have about it and the better you can
differentiate central from tangential ones.
There is another
side to these suggestions that you must keep in mind, however. Researchers may
reserve their best and most practical suggestions for themselves and include in
their “next steps” section only “pie in the sky” ones that they don’t see a
away to handle. There may be hidden problems in the suggestions that are
apparent to them because of the work just done. They will discuss such
difficulties if you contact them personally but may not have gone into those aspects
in their writing. A parallel to the “Peter principle” (Peter, 1969) applies to
researchers: they ofen carry a line of investigation as far as it is
profitable. By contacting a resarcher
who has dropped an area, you may learn that it was dropped because of the
attraction of new reseacrh. But the information may also save you from
rediscovering a difficulty at first hand.
Keep
a log of ideas and experiences
Immersion in a
situation of interest is one of the best ways to learn where there is research
potential. Consider a pilot
observational study in a role that permits you to learn. Enlist as a teacher’s
side, “show” a social worker or administrator, work as a custodian or
maintenance worker-try any of a variety of roles that allow access, preferably as
unobtrusively as possible. This stage
can be both exciting and frustasing- exciting because of all that is new and
interesting, frustasing because there are so many leads to follow.
Simultaneously reading about the situation will bring new meaning to what you
are reading and new understanding to what you you are observasing; reading and
observation each inform the other. Student teachers grow tremendously in their
observation of classroom from observing who interacts with whom, how
individuals play games with one another, how some individuals manifest
insecurity in their overt action and others mask it. But simply observing is
not enough; you must process, think, compare and contrast observations. That
means keeping a log.
Keeping a log of
your work and ideas is a tradition honored more in the natural than the social
sciences. Past resarchers made a fetish or keeping a research notebook. Thomas
Edison kept copious notes on all that went on in the laboratory because they
kept ideas from getting lost. Resarch managers usually keep notebooks to catch
the ideas from getting lost. Reserach managers usually keep notebooks to catch
the ideas that flash into their minds. Often the difference between the person
who is credited with an idea and one who ends up saying, “ I thought of that
long ago” is that the former captured the idea and acted on it. Further,
keeping a log has all the advantages discussed in the section on formulating
the problem as a written statement.
Use
others’ data to answer new queations
Data banks are
rife with records waiting to be built into significant research studies.
Computerization makes access easy once the codes that facilitate labeling and
interpreting the data are obtained. Data from longitudinal studies, large-scale
surveys, and major social experiments are frequently available to researchers.
Directories of databases ( such as Williams, Lannoms, and Robins 1985) display
the wide array of available oppurtunities.
Coleman’s widely
quoted studies of public and private schools ( Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore,
1982) grew out of routine data collection by the U.S Department of Education
and exemplify the kinds of studies that can be extracted from these files.
Considering the tremendous sums invested in gathering these data, the possibility
of using them has abvious attractions. There are many approaches; using new or
more appropriate methods to reanalyze the data, tracking a sub group over time,
partitioning the data to determine how deeply certain trends reach, or
combining subgroup or even data from different studies to see whether a trend
emerges.
A few words of
warnig area in order, however. Fisrt, most old research hands would suggest
that having a question and then searching for useful data is more likely to
result in a significant study than the other way around. Otherwise, you may too
quickly compromise problem quality to fit available data. Second, anyone who
has gathered field data quickly learns the variety of conditions that can
compromise data quality and introduce anomalies. If possible, talk to the
original investigators or examine any available records that bear on data
quality.
New techniques
of analysis open up new avenous of investigation and permit reanalysis of
significant data. When carl rogers began recording counseling interviews and
categorizing the data. He noticed a pattern in the negative affect hat had not
been apparent earlier ( Rogers, 1951). Over successive couseling sessions
negative self- references initially rose but thenn declined with problem
resolution. This began a significant era in counseling-methods research made
possible by the advent of magnetic recording. It allowed interview statements
to be carefully categorized and coded. Bales (1950) devised interaction
analysis, a method for recording and analyzing the interaction of individuals
in groups. It lead not only to considerable fruitful research on how groups
work but also to spinoff instruments for use in analyzing classroom behavior.
Both groups and classroom had previously been researched only with realtively
crude judgmental scales. New instruments permit problems to be examined that were not previously reachable. Indeed,
one indication of progress in a field is the accessibility of its phenomena by
measures. (The University of Chicago’s social science reserach building has
Lord Kelvin’s motto carved over the door:” when you cannot measure your
knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.”)
Methapors,
analogies, and models are particularly helpful in examining problmes. Education
has typically been locked on as a necessary function for maintaining a culture
and an informed electorate. When it began to be looked at as an investment,
using economic terms and models, a new perspective was gained that was
especially useful to third- world countries seeking to catch up to the rest
quickly. Van den haag (1956) used the idea as his dissertation and showed the
very interesting consequences if all higher education were viewed as an
investment and individuals were required to pay the full cost of instruction
(he concluded that all fields except the humanities should pay their way).
Homeostasis is another example that, used as a model for stable systems, has
spread through nearly every field and is the basis for the technology of
systems theory.
Translate
significant ideas from other languages
Although the
United States and other English- speaking countries have been leaders in data-
based social science, there is a long tradition of thoughtful examination of
such problem in other countries. It has resulted in some of our most important
conceptualizations- durkheim’s and Freud’s, for example. Finding such material
and bringing it into mainstream english- language literature is important. This
requires sufficient knowledge of a foreign language that you can both recognize
significant ideas in that language and translate them accurately enough so as
to be useful to others. Piaget’s work with children was available to those who
had mastered French years before his work became popular in English- speaking
countries. Such lags still exist. The introductionof such idea in
understandable from is a real service and can lead to significant advances in a
field.
Potential sources of problems to research include
these:
·
Suggestions made by others as they
finish a study or review an area of research.
·
Problems growing out of of our logs of
activities in explaining an area.
·
Databases resulting from routine
collection or past research studies
·
The application of a new technique,
instrument, or model to old approaches or their use to open up new ones.
Ideas in other language and from other cultures
with general applicability.
|
Crtiteria
of a good problem
The process of a problem finding is similar to
the actions of a camera buff with a new zoom lens. She goes to an area that
interests her and starts with a distnace wide-angle shot, surveying the
landscape. As she sees something of interest, she zooms in to explore it and
see if there is anything there. If there isn’t, she zooms out again, exploring
other facets. In time, she’ll scramble to a new vantage point, looking at the
scene from a new angle, again zooming in and out in a search of the nooks and
crannies of the landscape. This sets her off scrambling over rocks and hillocks
for better and new views. But when is the picture just right? When does
she stop the search and start composing,
so that you’ll recognize one when you see it. A good problem is (1) of
interest, (2) embedded in theory, (3) likely to have impact, (4) original in
some aspect, and (5) feasible- within your conceptual, resource, ethical, and
institutional limits.
·
The Goldilocks test; is
the research questio so broad it’s untenable, so narrow it’s dull – or is it
just right?
·
The five- year test; a
five –year- old should be able to understand the purpose of the project.
·
The blood test; people
besides your blood relative should wat to read the reserach results.
Interest;
a necessary but not sufficient condition
For most
researchers, interest is the prime qualification, for it orovides the
motivation to work on the problem. As one doctoral student put it “ it’s your
baby, so it better be one you can love when you are up with it at night?” (
Grant, 1986). Professors’ files are full of projects that failed this test and
the many doctoral ABD (all but dissertation) canditates are further testimony
to its importance. Clearly, it is one necessary condition: the other is
feasibility. But beside these two, a problem should have as many of the
following characteristics as possible.
Basis
in theory
The impact of
isolated studies is trivial. But a study can contribute to explanations and
significant ideas. It can provide the base of data for understanding them, for
contradicting and correcting, modifying, extending,or in other ways interacting
with them. Then a study’s impact is multiplied. As it affects the network of
previous findings, it becomes embedded wtith those ideas and shares in their
implications and effects. Problems that either build new rationale and theory
or affect previous work area less likely to get lost and more likely to have
impact.
The power of
Skinner to sway people to behaviorism lay not in his individual studies of
learning, though these were importnat in building the base. Rather it lay in
the rationale he built around these findings, which had important implications
for explaining much of human activity; he even used the theory to suggest how language develops ( Skinner,
1957).
Similarly,
piaget, whose formal experimentation must be considered minimal and whose
large- scale research is nonexistent, proposed a set of stages of development
that had implications for teaching children. It was the power of his theory,
his explanation of phenomena, that resulted in his impcat. Think of others who
have had an impact on social science, and almost without exception, it is the
power of their ideas that is the dominating factors. Empirical research not
related to that body of thinking tends to be isolated from it and to have less
impact.
Perhaps you are
asking what is meant by theory. Simply put, we mean an explanation of behavior
that makes ood logical sense and either is consistent with the research and
explanations that preceded it or convincingly negates or modifies them.
Discussion of what constitutes a good theory could fill the rest of this book.
Many social scientists agree that we don’t have the kind of grand and precise
theories that natural scientists are seen as having; some would argue that we
don’t have anything worthy of the name. Be that as it may, nearly all would
agree that ideas that unify a variety of findings and assimilate them into a
cohesive and interrelated body, as behaviorism does, for instance, are most
useful. When we consider the myriad things that could be researched in a
situation, theories help us find the significant variables. They suggest research
directions and help locate points where research is needed to bolster
arguments. They provide a network into which new findings can be integrated;
the extent to which such findings fit the network tends to support or weaken
our faith in them. Good problems are strengthened when they relate to theory.
When choosing or
developing theory, be guided by what Yvonna Linclon, in a speech at the
American Educational Research Association Convention, called the Coco Channel
principle;” Simple is always elegant, ultimately timeless and usually in
fashion. Parsimony is prettier?” when choosing among explanations, choose the
simplest that adequately covers the data.
Some
impact in its field
Beyond interest
and feasibility, the criterion most researchers consider most important is
impact. We have already considered one way in which you can have impact on your
field, but there are other aspects to consider. Indeed, some persons have
considerable difficulty finding a problem because they are not satisfied with
what they perceive as the potential impact of the outcomes.
In the context
of program evalutaion, Cronbach (1982) describes impact with the term leverage,
but his ideas are relevant to research as well. “ Leverage refers to the
influence that reducing a particular uncertainty has on decision” this may be
uncertainty about whether their relationship exists or uncertainty about its
generality. After the study is completed “ leverage is directly visible in the
response of the community to the evidence. A social workers is concerned
because the content of in-service training is determined by the supervisor
instead of the workers themselves. She does a study to show that the training
is more effective when planned and implemented by the workers than a
supervisor. Her intent is that supervisors will be deterred and workers will be
empowered in the determination of in-service training. But such an intent
ignores the realities of responsibility and administrators’ perceptions of
their roles and is likely to have little impact- leverage- in changing the
situation.
Similarly, a
study intended to show increased effectiveness of instruction with smaller
classes will have greater impact if the increased cost of schooling is related
to the value of what is achieved. But a study that shows that a teacher can be
more effective by using certain behaviors may have considerable impact if the
cost and difficulty of learning those behaviors are low. Hence impact must be
gauged by an accurate understanding of the dynamics of the situation in shich
change is intended and determination of response to such questions as, “ why
hasn’t it changed?” “would it change in the light of new evidence?” “what would
it take to change it ?”
Origanility
and Creativity
A good problem
reflects some of the originality and creativity of its author. As Morris Kleins
says; “ I thimk that in research you want to satisfy your own ego. You want to
know you did it before the other fellow. “ (Rosner and Abt, 1970). Yet the hard
fact of the matter is that we all stand on each other’s shoulders. The
competitive spirit provides a useful drive, but it gets in the way when it
blinds us to our dependence on others. Graduate students often refuse problems
they did not invent in a kind of “second adolescence “ in which they want to be
independent and show they can do things themselves (Krathwohl, 1988). It helps
if they recognize their adolescentlike behavior and gain perspective on the
help being offered. Researchers can make problems their own by adding just
enough of their own thinking to another’s problem to get an “investman” in it.
How much
originality is enough? It is impossible to say: the negative exremes are easier
to specify. For example, some researchers try so hard to be original that they
make their problem overly complex and overlook ways of simplifying. Others
seems too ready to accept other researchers’ ideas without trying a break the
problem apart for themselves. None od us starts from scratch; it is important
to find that middle ground and be comfortable with it.
Feasibility
A
good problem is feasible if (1) it lends itself to investigation with the
instruments and techniques that are either available or can be invented, (2) it
is within the capability of the investigator’s available or acquirable
experience and skills, and (3) it can be accomplished within whatever social,
ethical, and resource limits must be observed. As s criterion, feasibility is
obviously critical, yet novice investigators, in their zeal, often feel that
the only way to have impact is to choose a topic well beyond their capacity in
terms of size, complexity, or required skills. This also is part of the “second
adolescence” phenomenon- “ I can do it, don’t tell me I must cut it down, don’t
demean me in that way !” Such advice to reduce the scope of a study is in no
way intended to devalue the person. Indeed, the hope is to keep the person from
a position of self- devaluation. But unless the advice is viewed in
perspective, it can be perceived incorretly.
Surely
for the novice investigator, the difficulty of doing a project itself is
sufficient. Adding the task of developing a new instrument and showing its
validity or mastering a new statistical or analytic technique and convincing
the audience of its superiority markedly increases the burden. Each of these activities
is big enough to be research project in itslef and is better treated as such.
Untill you have had sufficient experience, combining two such large projects
into one should be avoided.
Project
difficulty also comes in the form of complexity. To keep the problem within
their grasp, researchers frequently shy away form problems perceived as too
difficult or complex. The 4-minute mile was a boundary once thought to be
beyond the capacity of the human body to exceed. Yet once broken by one man who
believed he could do it, it has been exceeded many times. An amazing capacity
of the human mind is the extent to which it can be strechted by concentration.
There is the mistaken impression that the “greats” can pick up a problem of
considerable complexity and work with it at any time. Yet in talking with such
people, we realize that this is a myth. At the time of their contribution, they
made a significant investment of time and effort and stayed with the problem
almost continuously. Raising questions about it later usually requires a period
for refamiliarization- sometimes more effort than they are willing to exert,
and so they’ll have moved on to other problems. Thus problems perceived as
beyond our grasp may not be, if we are willing to spend the time nad effort
needed to master them
Motivation
is clearly critical, and it is more likely to be greater if what is required
contributes to some later goal as well as the current one. Unfortunately,
novices sometimes choose the problems requiring skills that have little
relevance to the area in which they hope to excel; for example, people oriented
individuals who try to master complicated numeric techniques, electronic
equipment, or software programming with little relevance to their future
occuption may find their motivation waning.
Social,
Ethical, Instituitional, and Resource Limitations. All studies must be done
within limits, for example:
·
The research time
required can not be tolerated by a busy clinic.
·
Leaving the control
group withouth treatment may not be permitted by anxious parents.
·
Prying into people’s
value structure, political affiliations, or sex lives may not be warranted by
the value of the information gained in relation to the possible unpleasantness
or perceived harm to the subjects.
·
The cost to investigate
the required number of subjects to do a study well may be beyond the resources
of a investigator.
Prime
considerations are what an instuitions will allow, what a comunity deems
appropriate, and what ethical constraint the profession places on research.
Codes of ethics in many professions provide guidelines to protect subjects from
harm. Every federally supported research project must be approved by a human
subjects protection committee that determines if there is the possibility of
discimfort or harm and if so, if it is justifiable. Many instituitions require
approval by this commitee even for projects without federal finding. Finally,
there are limits on our own time, funds, and energy, which, though somewhat
flexible, have boundaries that we must find and observe. So feasibility is
important in terms of not being intimidated by apparent limitations yet also
acknowledging institutional realities.
Here
are some questions to ask yourself about your problem:
·
Is it of sufficient interest that I will
continue to be motivated through to its completion?
·
Is it embedded in theory so that it is
a part of anetwork of prepositions and explanations?
·
Will it have some impact on the field
?
·
Has it an element of originality and
creativity about it ?
·
Is it feasible in terms of my acquired
or acquirable knowledge and skills , as well as being within my social,
ethical, institutional, and resource limitations ?
|
Researchable
Questins
Be
sure your question is researchable; not all questions are. The most common nonresearchable
problems are those that show waht ought to be done- children ought to be able
to read the classics by the sixth grade, clients should be permitted to find
their own solutions in therapy, there should be
free market in education with the goverment paying for whatever means of
achieving an education pupils and parents choose. Note the italicized words;
ought and should. Nobody can show that something ought to be done. “Ought” or
“ought not” involves a value judgment! Research can be helpful by showing the
consequences if something were or weren’t done. Then somebody else can decide
whether those consequences merit saying ,” Yes, it ought to be done!”
Research
can also determine gow well such propositions are supported in a given
community. It can determine the consequences of a particular course of action
such as letting a client or a pupil have the right of choice. It can show what
will happen if one tries to have sixth graders read the classics or evaluate a
program intended to enable them to do so. All such questions will unearth
evidence that may help a decision maker determine an “appropriate” choice, but
research can not directly affirm or deny a value proposotion.
Research
can help a decison maker to determine the implications of something that is
desireable or desired, but it can never determine what ought to be- that is a
value judgment.
|