Research report on visual impairment should be done by literature review, You need to review at-least 9 articles. understanding the research report should be in the format of journal article where by we identify  problem, key points, argument, abstract and so on….. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20 Download by: [University of Canberra] Date: 20 October 2015, At: 18:23 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education ISSN: 0951-8398 (Print) 1366-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20 Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process Jane Agee To cite this article: Jane Agee (2009) Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22:4, 431-447, DOI: 10.1080/09518390902736512 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512 Published online: 09 Jul 2009. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 27991 View related articles Citing articles: 9 View citing articles International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education Vol. 22, No. 4, July–August 2009, 431–447 ISSN 0951-8398 print/ISSN 1366-5898 online © 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09518390902736512 http://www.informaworld.com Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process Jane Agee* Department of Educational Theory and Practice, The University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222, USA TaQySloEr_ aAn_d3 F7r3a8n2c1is.sgm (Received 12 June 2008; final version received 9 January 2009) jI012TDOan09agrt.05.iyee1 g019rJle0iona-0@n8r8an0a 0t3e&2ali/A 9ol0A b8nF09gar ar95e(tnlaipe1 cynJr8l.oicen3iudst9r)u0n/19a3l0 62o67f -3Q568u59a18l2i t(aotnivlien Se)tudies in Education The reflective and interrogative processes required for developing effective qualitative research questions can give shape and direction to a study in ways that are often underestimated. Good research questions do not necessarily produce good research, but poorly conceived or constructed questions will likely create problems that affect all subsequent stages of a study. In qualitative studies, the ongoing process of questioning is an integral part of understanding the unfolding lives and perspectives of others. This article addresses both the development of initial research questions and how the processes of generating and refining questions are critical to the shaping of a qualitative study. Keywords: qualitative research questions; qualitative methods; development Many qualitative researchers see a question as a beginning point for their research. Once a satisfactory question is in place, a study can begin. A research question does fulfill this function, but I propose here that much more is involved in creating and using research questions in qualitative studies. The reflective and interrogative processes required for developing research questions can give shape and direction to a study in ways that are often underestimated. Good questions do not necessarily produce good research, but poorly conceived or constructed questions will likely create problems that affect all subsequent stages of a study. Ultimately, the quality of the initial questions impacts whether or not a study is approved by a dissertation committee, published, or funded. This article addresses both the development of initial research questions and how the processes of generating and refining questions are critical to the shaping all phases of a qualitative study the inquiry process. The idea of qualitative inquiry as a reflective process underscores the strengths of a qualitative approach. At the heart of this approach are methods for representing what Geertz (1973, 10) called the ‘microscopic’ details of the social and cultural aspects of individuals’ lives. He described the central task of the ethnographer in his well-known discussion on the myriad interpretations of a human wink. He noted that it is not enough to describe a wink and label it as a behavior. Rather, ‘the thing to ask’ about human behaviors is ‘what their import is’ (Geertz 1973, 10). The researcher’s credibility rests, according to Geertz, on the specifics of a place and the people who inhabit that place at a given moment, an issue addressed by Maxwell (2005), Patton (2002), and others. Thus, the researcher’s worth is characterized by ‘the degree to which he is *Email: [email protected] Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 432 J. Agee able to clarify what goes on in such places, to reduce the puzzlement – what manner of men are these?’ (Geertz 1973, 16). Qualitative inquiries involve asking the kinds of questions that focus on the why and how of human interactions. Qualitative research questions, then, need to articulate what a researcher wants to know about the intentions and perspectives of those involved in social interactions. Strauss (1987/1990, 6) noted that the traditions from which qualitative inquiry sprang ‘placed social interaction and social processes at the center’ of this approach. He highlighted the purpose for qualitative inquiry (as developed by the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago) which ‘from its inception emphasized the necessity for grasping the actors’ viewpoints for understanding interaction, process, and social change’ (Strauss 1987/1990, 6). In qualitative studies, then, the ongoing process of questioning is an integral part of understanding the unfolding lives and perspectives of others. Creswell (2007, 43) noted that ‘Our questions change during the process of research to reflect an increased understanding of the problem,’ a point also addressed by Charmaz (2006) as a central part of using grounded theory. However, changes in questions should also emerge from researchers’ capacities to examine their own roles and perspectives in the inquiry process, especially how they are positioned in relation to participants. More recent qualitative inquiry has moved toward involving the researcher and participants in the process of inquiry (e.g., Flick 2006; Lassiter 2005; Maxwell 2005). Participants are sometimes invited to collaborate on the formulation of research questions, especially in participatory action research. Stringer (2007, 11) argued that ‘All stakeholders – those whose lives are affected by the problem under study – should be engaged in the processes of investigation.’ Given these developments in qualitative research, I focus on the development of questions as part of a larger interactive process wherein the primary premises of qualitative inquiry are more fully realized. Good qualitative questions are usually developed or refined in all stages of a reflexive and interactive inquiry journey. Flick (2006, 105) noted that ‘reflecting on and reformulating the research questions are central points of reference for assessing the appropriateness of the decisions you take at several points.’ To extend the journey metaphor, it is helpful to think of research questions as navigational tools that can help a researcher map possible directions but also to inquire about the unexpected. Below, I address ways of conceptualizing, developing, and writing research questions for a qualitative study. I realize that, within the scope of a single article, it is not possible to tackle all aspects of question development, but I felt it would be helpful, after working with doctoral students and reviewing journal articles, books, and conference proposals over the years to address this topic. I begin with the conceptualization of qualitative questions and how they evolve during different stages of a study. Then I describe some of the characteristics of good questions. I end with suggestions for writing effective questions and situating them in a paper or a dissertation. The process of developing questions Some qualitative researchers, especially those who write about grounded theory, recommend waiting until one is in the field and collecting data to fully develop research questions. In many situations, though, waiting is not an option. Charmaz Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 433 (2006, 154) pointed out the realities that confront many novice researchers: ‘The emergent character of grounded theory may conflict with class report or dissertation requirements.’ A qualitative study does not begin with a hypothesis or a presumed outcome as is the case in a quantitative study. However, as Richards (2005) noted, a qualitative study cannot begin without a plan. She argued that such an approach would be ‘unacceptable for both ethical and practical reasons’ (Richards 2005, 14). Because most researchers do need at least some initial questions for dissertations and funded project proposals, I address those who need to develop questions early on as part of designing a qualitative study. However, I want to emphasize that these initial questions are only a beginning point in the inquiry process. As Creswell (2007, 107) noted, qualitative questions are ‘evolving.’ First iterations of questions are tentative and exploratory but give researchers a tool for articulating the primary focus of the study. Beginning the process Researchers often begin thinking about a study long before they draft their first research questions. For Janesick (2000, 382), qualitative research begins with ‘a question, or at least an intellectual curiosity if not a passion for a particular topic.’ Certainly this statement will ring true for most researchers. I often find ideas for studies bubbling up as I read and teach and now keep an ‘Idea File’ on my computer. Most of the doctoral students I work with begin thinking about a study based on a deep interest in a topic they have already begun exploring. Good questions can grow out of initial curiosity or ideas for a qualitative study, but at the early stages most questions are rough drafts. Janesick (2000, 382) suggests beginning with a self-question: ‘What do I want to know in this study?’ Even those using grounded theory have some broad questions after entering a potential research site. Charmaz (2006, 20) suggests that broad questions such as ‘What’s going on here?’; ‘What are the basic social processes?’; and ‘What are the basic social psychological processes?’ can serve to help a researcher find some initial focus. Maxwell (2005, 65) called these early questions ‘provisional,’ but noted that even these early iterations are already determining decisions about theory and methods. These initial questions can be conceptualized as generative: they may invite a series of more specific questions that help to create the focus needed to move forward with data collection. One of the problems that novice researchers may find challenging is framing a qualitative question that not only inquires about phenomena, understanding, or perceptions, but also signals the relevance of the study to a field or discipline. Flick (2006, 109) described qualitative research questions as those that are ‘describing states and those describing processes.’ However, most qualitative questions are also linked implicitly to a specific field of study. Patton (2002, 216) offered a typology of the kinds of disciplinary questions that often shape more specific questions in a discipline. For example, anthropologists may ask questions such as ‘What is the nature of culture?’ or ‘What are the functions of culture?’ Others have offered constructs for question types that help a researcher think about the kind of study they are doing and what purpose the researcher has. For example, Marshall and Rossman (2006) described questions that perform four different functions: exploratory, explanatory, descriptive, and emancipatory. I doubt that many researchers begin with these typologies in mind, but it is helpful perhaps to use these typologies to think about potential Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 434 J. Agee directions that a study might take and about the relevance of a study to a particular discipline. Most qualitative researchers need specific questions for a proposal. Creating one or two broad questions can be a fertile starting point for thinking through the specifics of what the study is about and what data will need to be collected. Maxwell (2005, 67) observed that ‘precisely framed research questions … can point you to specific areas of theory that you can use as modules in developing an understanding of what’s going on, and suggest ways to do the study.’ For example, a researcher in the field of social welfare might want to know if child welfare workers suffer from secondary post-traumatic stress as a result of their work with neglected or abused children. An initial question might be simply framed: Do child welfare workers suffer from secondary post-traumatic stress? This broad question is already giving some focus to the study and is clearly relevant to the field of social welfare. However, the phrasing of this question is problematic as it could be answered with a yes or no and does not suggest a qualitative approach. Good qualitative questions should invite a process of exploration and discovery, as Creswell (2007) suggests. Initial provisional questions can become more focused; however, with a question like the one above, movement forward later in the inquiry process is constrained. Maxwell (2005, 67) also cautioned that starting with questions that are too focused can lead to ‘tunnel vision’ and can inhibit a researcher’s understanding and analysis. Creating discovery-oriented questions can help a researcher use the process of developing and refining questions as a basis for a more rigorous and reflexive inquiry.  With a qualitative study, a researcher is inquiring about such topics as how people are experiencing an event, a series of events, and/or a condition. The questions generally seek to uncover the perspectives of an individual, a group, or different groups. Most qualitative studies need to be focused on the particularities of the local and on the ‘thick description’ of human interactions in that context (Geertz 1973, 6).With those characteristics in mind, a question needs to move the researcher toward discovering what is happening in a particular situation with a particular person or group. A good example of this kind of question is one that Janesick (2000, 383) created as her overarching question for a study on deaf adults: ‘How do deaf adults manage to succeed academically and in the workplace given the stigma of deafness in our society?’ This question, as she noted, guided her methods and suggested a critical theoretical framework for her study – the cultural stigma of deafness in the USA. However, she also focuses on two specific contexts, academia and workplaces, in which this stigma affects human interactions. Sometimes, it is necessary to bring others into the development of first iterations of questions. For a doctoral student, decisions about initial questions are often made with an advisor and/or a dissertation committee. For those engaging in evaluation studies, and also perhaps in ethnographic studies, it may be important to collaborate with a funding agency or with the group under study to see what questions they feel are important to answer. The direction and the scope of the questions may be critical to designing an effective study and to collecting data that the stakeholders find acceptable and meaningful. Creating an overarching question to guide the inquiry process Developing an overarching question, as Janesick (2000) did, has advantages for the researcher. A broadly framed question can serve as a basis for initial and emerging Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 435 sub-questions. A single overarching question allows a researcher to capture the basic goals of the study in one major question. A clearly stated overarching question can give direction for the study design and collection of data and offer potential for developing new, more specific questions during data collection and analysis. Sometimes, these broader research questions are not stated as questions but rather as goals for the study. In a study of working class high school girls, Hartman (2006, 82) began her article with the following statement: This ethnographic study focuses on a group of academically successful working class girls and their uses of literacy in high school English class. Specifically, I examined these girls’ classroom literacy in the context of gender and class identities, looking at how their gendered and class identities influenced their uses of literacy and how these girls used texts from English class to construct their gender and class. This statement identified her overarching focus of inquiry and could be converted to a question format, but for the article, stating her purpose for the inquiry works just as well. Prindeville (2003) used a similar approach in her article on the role of race, ethnicity, and gender on women who are activists or political leaders. She began her paper with a statement that incorporates several elements that could be stated as questions, but with this opening paragraph, she was able to describe the focus and purpose of the study as well as her theoretical frames: This article examines the role that race/ethnicity and gender play in the politics of 50 American Indian and Hispanic women public officials and grassroots activists in New Mexico. Incorporation of both formal/electoral and informal/grassroots leaders into one study provides valuable opportunities for comparison and contrast among women in politics working in a variety of circumstances toward the generally similar goals of empowering others to participate in public life and representing marginalized groups’ interests. This study of Native women and Latinas in both governmental institutions and grassroots organizations focuses on the influence of race/ethnicity and gender identity on their political ideologies and motives for activism. (Prindeville 2003, 591) Although this approach offers some of the same information as a series of questions might, some people prefer questions because they can offer more clearly defined goals for the study and better guide data collection. One potential problem with the statement above is that the second sentence offers the implicit idea that all women in politics are working ‘toward the generally similar goals of empowering others to participate in public life and representing marginalized groups’ interests’ (Prindeville 2003, 591). If cast as a question, such a statement might more clearly be recognized interpreted as a ‘leading’ question, one where the author is presupposing a condition rather than being open to what she might discover in conducting interviews with her participants. In this instance, as is common in critical studies, the researcher is working from a set of assumptions that are linked to a critical theoretical position on gender and power. I will address these kinds of presuppositions later in the article when describing effective questions. Developing sub-questions and new questions during a study An initial generative question can set the stage for developing related sub-questions. Sub-questions can take many forms, depending on the focus of the overarching Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 436 J. Agee question. Creswell (2007, 109–110), drawing on Stake (1995), described ‘issue’ and ‘procedural’ sub-questions, although some questions may cut across these categories.  Both types of sub-questions emerge from an overarching question and ask about the specifics of a topic/issue or a phenomenon. Rubenstein-Avila (2007) used her initial question on a single case study of a young woman from the Dominican Republic who moved to the USA to set up two related sub-questions. Her first question – ‘What counts as literacy for a young Dominican immigrant woman as she makes the transition into high school in the USA?’ – led to two sub-questions: ‘In what ways do her emerging transnational experiences affect her expanding repertoire of literacy practices?’ and ‘What role does school play in the development of the literacy practices that count across institutions of higher education in an era of globalization?’ (Rubenstein-Avila 2007, 572). These sub-questions narrow the broader focus of the overarching question. While allowing for discovery, they also give direction to the particular kinds of data she would need to collect: data on this participant’s transnational experiences from her perspective and data on school policies that affect literacy practices in a global society. The development of new questions, especially sub-questions, often occurs during the inquiry process, sometimes during data collection and analysis. A researcher may find that the initial focus of the research question is too limited to fully address the phenomenon under study. The addition of new questions is especially necessary in ethnographic studies or longitudinal studies where the research is evolving over months or even years. As I collected data in a three-year study of an African-American preservice teacher (Agee 2004, 749), I discovered that I needed to add questions. As I observed Tina’s struggles, my research questions changed. Initially I was interested in preservice teachers’ perspectives on reading and teaching literature. However, as I continued to work with Tina during her first two years in the classroom, I focused on a second question: How is Tina, as an African American teacher who ended up teaching in a suburban school, able to develop her teaching identity in her first 2 years of teaching? Tina’s experiences also prompted larger questions: How do national and state policies that shape standards and assessments influence teacher identity formation, especially for teachers who want to use more diverse texts and approaches? Are teacher education programs unintentionally maintaining a White, Euro-American hegemony with discourse that makes teachers of color and their perspectives on curriculum invisible? These subsequent questions ended up reshaping my data collection and my analyses. Sometimes researchers construct a series of questions that flow from one another, with the possibility that additional questions may be added as data is collected. In a study of the dialogic lives of actors from two countries, Linden and Cermak (2007) use this questioning technique to examine particular intersections of culture with  the personal and professional lives of professional actors in the two countries. They begin with a series of related questions that reveal the complexities of these actors’ experiences in personal and professional contexts: What does contextual knowledge of working life represent under conditions in which the social setting at the place of work is regarded as a subculture in which norms, traditions and rituals are created? What processes are involved in actors’ creating meanings that are important for their experiencing professional fulfillment and how is this related to their life experiences in general?(Linden and Cermak 2007, 48) Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 437 The focus of these questions helped the researchers develop a variety of protocols, from personal and group diaries to interviews, to collect the kinds of data that would reveal the actors’ perspectives on their personal and professional lives. Their questions grew out of the hermeneutic framework that they used to highlight critical moments in the actors’ lives. They offer the potential for exploration of a rich nexus of social and cultural issues that deeply affect these participants. Theory and questions: a dialogic process Theory is inextricably linked to research questions, whether the theory is shaping them initially or suggesting new questions as the study unfolds. An overarching question for many qualitative studies will point toward one or more of the theoretical constructs that frame the study. As Maxwell (2005, 68) explained, research questions need to account for one’s ‘tentative theories about … phenomena.’ Those tentative theories and the questions that result from them may very well change to accommodate data collection or preliminary findings. Often, when doctoral students write a proposal, they are drawn to grand theories as a beginning point. For example, a researcher may be drawn to social justice issues and therefore choose a critical theory framework, writ large, in the initial stages. As the design develops, the researcher may decide to focus on questions about a particular aspect of a social context, such as social interactions. At this point, the theory might be narrowed to discourse analysis, and research questions about discourse and the positioning of individuals in a discourse would follow. Theoretical framing evolves and changes during most studies and may also inspire additional questions as a researcher collects data. Karpiak (2006, 86), for example, had begun her study of middle-aged social workers with three questions: ‘What happens to these professionals in their work, their personal relationships, and their sense of self during the mid-life transition? How do they manage the changes and transitions during this period? Finally, for those for whom this period has ushered in major changes, what events triggered them?’ After she was immersed in collecting her data, she found chaos theory revealed other dimensions of the participants’ life changes that she had not originally considered: ‘Through the lens of this theory, I could see the possibilities for human evolution that may follow from disorder, turbulence, chaos, and crisis’ (Karpiak 2006, 105). Karpiak’s turn to Chaos Theory helped generate new questions on how middle-aged people handle life situations beyond their control. Some researchers, such as Yin (1994), propose that a theoretical framework should inform the research questions for case study research as the theory will help to define the selection and parameters of cases. As researchers design a study and protocols, theory often shapes the methods in explicit ways. For many researchers, selecting a theoretical framework not only shapes the questions but also connects the research to a particular field. In a reflective piece on some earlier research, Merriam (2006) explained how she and her colleagues used the transformation learning theory of Mezirow (1990) in developing a study of HIV-positive young adults. She described the role of theory in all aspects of the study: ‘Our interest in the framework of transformational learning drove all aspects of our study from identifying the focus of our investigation, to sample selection, to interpretation of our data’ (Merriam 2006, 26). The research question Merriam et al. developed emerged from theory and guided them to select a particular group of participants: ‘Having selected a sample of HIV-positive Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 438 J. Agee young adults, we wanted to explore how they made sense of this catastrophic news; that is, how does a young adult make meaning of this threat to his or her existence?’ (Merriam 2006, 27). This question reflected Mezirow’s ideas about a process of learning that leads, through a meaning-making process, to transformations in thought and action in the lives of individuals. Merriam et al. also pointed out the relevance of Mezirow’s theory to the field of adult learning, so they were making connections between this study and this particular field. Questions can point to theory explicitly or implicitly. For example, Patchen (2006) conducted an ethnographic study on Latina/Latino high school students’ participation in classroom discussions. Her questions offer explicit links to several theories. She asked: (1) How do the ways in which adolescent Latinas/Latinos conceptualize classroom participation processes shape active oral participation? (2) How do girls and boys understand the relationship of gender to participation? (3) What, if any, are the mitigating factors influencing classroom participation? (Patchen 2006, 2054) Her first and third questions point to discourse theory, and her second question more  specifically to theories on the role of gender in discussions. Her questions also connected her theoretical frameworks to her methods and guided her analyses. Her explicit connections to these theoretical constructs helped focus her inquiry but at the same time anticipated discoveries about these students’ conceptions. In some cases, research questions offer more implicit links to theory. In a study on the online journaling of two adolescent girls, Guzzetti and Gamboa (2005, 169) used the following questions: (1) What is the new literacy practice of online journaling? (2) How do two focal students use online journaling to form and represent their identities? (3) For these two students, what are the engaging and appealing aspects of online journaling that might inform instructional practice in their language arts classrooms? The first question seeks to define the phenomenon as a literacy practice and to establish a link with theories on writing. The second question points to identity theory as a framework for examining the appeal of online journaling. The third question seeks to identify what aspects of this literacy practice are engaging for these students and could lead to theories on motivation or engagement. However, the third question is problematic. It is presuming implications for the study – that journaling is engaging and that this practice has the potential to inform practice – and is out of place as a research question. The main point to remember is that qualitative questions should embrace theory, either explicitly or implicitly as a way of giving direction and framing particular ideas. Theory also serves as a conceptual tool that can move an inquiry forward toward deeper levels of understanding. Ideally, the inquiry process should not only include possibilities for discoveries that may lead to new theory and questions, as was the case for Merriam et al., and for developing new theories and questions that may emerge from analyses of data but also possibilities for ongoing reflexivity about one’s own theories or world view. Creswell Downloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 439 (2007, 42) noted that a qualitative study begins with ‘the broad assumptions central to qualitative inquiry, a worldview consistent with it, and in many cases, a theoretical lens that shapes the study.’ One’s worldview often determines an initial choice of theory. As Flick (2006, 106) observed, research questions usually originate with ‘the researchers’ personal biographies and their social contexts.’ I find many students are in love with a particular theory even before shaping their questions, and it is likely that their own life experiences have played a role in their choice. However, the process of qualitative inquiry should invite the possibility for questioning personal theories and for expanding or modifying the original conceptual framework and research questions. Reflexivity and ethical considerations in developing questions Part of the process of developing questions in qualitative research is being reflective about how the questions will affect participants’ lives and how the questions will position the researcher in relation to participants. This ethical aspect of question development is often ignored, but is a central issue when a researcher proposes to study the lives of others, especially marginalized populations. As Flick (2006) noted, qualitative studies can reveal how people experience and think about events and social relations, so a qualitative question needs to be developed to take advantage of the unique capabilities of qualitative research. At the same time, because the researcher is representing the lives of individuals, the kinds of questions a researcher is asking become paramount when considering the short- and long-term effects on others. Ethnographers have, for the last three decades, called for more attention to issues in representing the lives of others (Clifford 1988; Clifford and Marcus 1986; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Rosaldo 1989). This concern with the re