Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Jacob Y. Stein
32.87 · Tel Aviv University
Can anyone elaborate on this? Or else refer me to a place where such a distinction is made clear?
Share 3 Recommendations
3 Recommendations
There is a clear distinction, at least between research questions and research goals/objectives. The latter distinction
is less clear.
Research questions are empirical or non-empirical questions that address an extant research problem. Empirically,
they can be exploratory, descriptive, explanatory, evaluative, predictive, and historical. Non-empirically they can be
meta-analytic, conceptual, theoretical, or normative.
Research goals can represent the overarching 'purpose' of the research (to explore/to explain/to describe
phenomenon X so to address gap in knowledge Y) whereas research objectives are subsets of goals, in which
particular objectives have to be achieved so to achieve the overarching goal(s).
Inherently, interpretive and exploratory research (in the constructivist paradigm) face the philosophical difficulty of
induction versus deduction, i.e. "how can I know which questions to ask if I haven't done the research?". Grounded
theory is one means for addressing this anomaly, where ordinarily research questions are derived from a systematic
review and analytic reading of the literature.
I am a proponent of the emergent and iterative principles that grounded theory espouses, namely that we can
formulate initial research questions, but that these too will emerge (and likely change!) as the research progresses,
e.g. through interpreting the empirical data or non-empirical phenomena. This is for example typical of more
anthropological/ethnographic studies, where strictly methodological concepts of "data" and "research questions" are
not as germane as in problem-based research.
4 Recommendations
4 Recommendations
The important thing is, you should not be conducting "qualitative research" if you don't already have a "research
question to ask". Otherwise, why would one even collect data in the first place? The objectives of the research are
the checkpoints that let you know if you are answering the question, but you still must ask the question in the first
place. <In my humble opinion>
Hi,
To my mind no matter the research is qualitative or quantitative, the point is objectives are narrower than goals
(though in many articles no special distinction is made between them) and the research question is most likely to be a
guess one makes at the quality of relationship between two concepts in an interrogative sentence form. Questions
can be made in both qualitative and quantitative research and it is not at all logical to elaborate that a qualitative
research must not have question(s) for which the research is conducting.
Another point: the research question is different from the research goal or objective as the former methodologically
facilitates the path through which we want to gain the latter. Mohammad
1 Recommendation
1 Recommendation
Interesting suggestion you were given in your studies. Is new for me. What almost every QR methods course will
suggest is that QR does not "test hypotheses" on its data. You will need a research question, the difference to
quantitative research is the kind of question you will ask. Where quant asks "what" and "how many", qualitative asks
"how" and more explorative, open-ended kind of questions.
The best set of books on qualitative research are te Sage Handbooks of Qualitative Inquiry. Currently on fourth
edition, each edition is pretty much a completely new volume. http://www.uk.sagepub.com/refbooks/Book233401
(Although be warned: these are not only qualitative researchers but post-qualitative researchers.)
There is a clear distinction, at least between research questions and research goals/objectives. The latter distinction
is less clear.
Research questions are empirical or non-empirical questions that address an extant research problem. Empirically,
they can be exploratory, descriptive, explanatory, evaluative, predictive, and historical. Non-empirically they can be
meta-analytic, conceptual, theoretical, or normative.
Research goals can represent the overarching 'purpose' of the research (to explore/to explain/to describe
phenomenon X so to address gap in knowledge Y) whereas research objectives are subsets of goals, in which
particular objectives have to be achieved so to achieve the overarching goal(s).
Inherently, interpretive and exploratory research (in the constructivist paradigm) face the philosophical difficulty of
induction versus deduction, i.e. "how can I know which questions to ask if I haven't done the research?". Grounded
theory is one means for addressing this anomaly, where ordinarily research questions are derived from a systematic
I am a proponent of the emergent and iterative principles that grounded theory espouses, namely that we can
formulate initial research questions, but that these too will emerge (and likely change!) as the research progresses,
e.g. through interpreting the empirical data or non-empirical phenomena. This is for example typical of more
anthropological/ethnographic studies, where strictly methodological concepts of "data" and "research questions" are
not as germane as in problem-based research.
4 Recommendations
4 Recommendations
I do not believe that it is true that it is necessary to have a research question to be able to pursue qualitative
research. Or indeed quantitative research either for that matter. There are a number of issues however related to any
research activity. Research can either be goal oriented or method oriented. IF it is goal oriented the selection of
method comes as a consequence of the researchers effort to problematize the problem space and the intended goal.
One of the big questions is then related to *what method is suitable for what I wish to achieve*? IF however the
research is *not* goal oriented (e.g. *blue sky research*) then the researcher does not need a (specific) goal for their
effort. Usually I such research is based on the application of some method - and then reflection over what came out
of it - thus not goal oriented but instead *discovery* oriented. In simple terms one can either do research with a goal
in mind and put effort into trying to figure out / discover what method is useful for that purpose. OR one can pursue
the application of some method -and put effort into trying to figure out what goal was discovered as a consequence.
These issues are however not limited by any particular method - any method, quantitative or qualitative can be
discussed in this way.
To put it in yet another way: either scientific rigour is put on *what you are pursuing* and this can be used to justify
the method chosen OR scientific rigour is put on the application of method and this can be used to justify what was
discovered. One or the other - I am not familiar with any other approach or strategy that would be acceptable or
recognized as academically valid.
1 Recommendation
1 Recommendation
One more thing: it is *very* doubtful if anyone ever *collects* qualitative data. What does that even mean in the
relation to the use and application of qualitative methods?
Yes I agree, I would also expect that research question is related to research objectives. This is however not always
explored in research grounded in positivist philosophy. The confusion of research question with objective is not all
that unusual in research using quantitative methods. However there should be no excuse for those who suggest that
their research is based upon an *interpretivist* philosophy of science. The difference between research question and
objective can be as simple as the difference between *what questions you ask* and *why you ask those questions".
Thank you all for your comments. If anyone is familiar with literature that elaborates on this topic I would be more
than greatful.
Answer
Similar Questions
What are the differences between conceptual framework and theoretical framework?
I am a PhD student of medical sociology. I have to use both the frameworks in my research project. Your
valuable and easy to understand answers...
79 answers added
What is the difference between introduction and background in research proposal and statement of problem and
rationale of the study?
I request simple answer if possible....
28 answers added
What is a "research gap" or "knowledge gap" in research and literature? Is gap explored or constructed ? How can
gap in research be identified?
There are confusing opinions about the phrases; "research gap" or "knowledge gap" which are commonly
used in the academic literature. How can we...
32 answers added
What is the difference between literature review, theoretical analysis and conceptual analysis?
As a law researcher, I always have the feeling that these three are the same. Therefore, I want to learn from
your experiences in this area of...
19 answers added
What is triangulation of data in qualitative research? Is it a method of validating the information collected through
various methods?
Triangulation means using more than one method to collect data on the
same topic. This is a way of
assuring the validity of research through
the...
31 answers added
Reads 5.86k
Followers 15
Answers 10
Related Publications
[Show abstract]
Jeffrey W. Alstete
Read full-text
Read
Full-text · Conference Paper · Apr 2017 · Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Read full-text
Careers Advertising
1
Home Answer Notifications Add Question
A research is a process through which information is obtained, validated, compared What is the difference between a research
to existing data, etc., with the purpose of either ascertaining that a hypothesis is question and a research problem?
valid/invalid, gathering information for purposes of increasing one’s knowledge How does scientific inquiry differ from non-
about a subject, or even simply obtaining a reliable source of information that is scientific inquiry?
capable of providing an answer/definition about a certain subject about which there What is the difference between research question
and research objectives?
is already sufficient amount of knowledge and consensus for it be generally seen as a
defined concept. Ask New Question
More Related Questions
A research may include many inquiries, in many of its different definitions. But a
research cannot be included within an inquiry, simply because that would convert
In other languages
the inquiry into a research, due to its broader nature.
Recommended All
Question Stats
A
d 22 Publicly Interested
d
27,366 Views
a
By Quora
c for Business Last Asked Jun 4
A great
o advertising solution to get high intent leads. 12 Merged Questions
m advertising allows you to influence people in the consideration phase of their
Quora Edits
m
purchase
e process.
n
Start now at quora.com
t..
.
Originally Answered: What are the differences between research and inquiry?
Research and inquiry are closely related - here is one way to think about about,
inquiry is the questioning aspect, whereas research is one of the ways to find the
answer. Good research is systematic, organized and rigorous approach to finding
reliable answers to your questions. Intuition, logic, and relying on authority are
alternatives to scientific methods aka research to find answers or create beliefs.
Upvote · 1
Share
Recommended All
A
d
d
a
Promoted
c by Developer Economics
What
o are you using to debug web apps?
Do myou know all the tools you can use? Take this survey for developers and expand
m
your
e knowledge!
n
Start now at s.developereconomics.com
t..
.
Ricardo Abreu, Experienced with Clinical Trials and medical R&D Contracts
Answered Jul 12, 2017
I hate to give you such a frustrating answer, but this is merely a matter of semantics.
A research may include many inquiries, in many of its different definitions. But a
research cannot be included within an inquiry, simply because that would convert
the inquiry into a research, due to its broader nature.
I hope this doesn’t sound too confusing, and is of at least a little bit of help, but let me
know if you want something more specific, such as using those terms within a
business context or any other possible variant of them.
Upvote · 7
Share
Recommended All
A
d
d
a
c
o
m Olfert Rahbek, Founder of wordmaps.org (2016-present)
m Answered Nov 9, 2017
e
n
Originally Answered: What is the comparison between Inquiry and Research?
t..
An .inquiry may be any kind of investigation, even just asking a question:
What do I do next?
Research also involves using questions (and therefore includes inquiry) but not
uncommonly the question is asked (once!) at the beginning and the rest of the
research focuses on answering the question:
This is a simple yes/no-question, but it may takes thousands of hours to answer. And
sometimes the answer is: No!
Then inquiry takes over: What, then, could the drug perhaps be used for?
Upvote
Share
Recommended All
A
d
d
a
c
o
m Kevin Dolgin, MSC Research, Pantheon-Sorbonne University (2011)
m Answered Jul 16, 2017
e
n
I assume
t.. you mean in a scientific and academic sense as opposed to a philosophical
.
or grammatical sense and I’ll respond in kind.
Inquiry means something very similar to what it means in the broader world. I am
curious about something, I want to study it, to consider it, perhaps do some informal
experiments and derive an hypothesis.
Research, on the other hand, has structures, rules, protocols, The more I adhere to
accepted protocols, the more my research will be taken seriously, and the better
chance I have of standing up to peer review and getting published in a good scientific
journal.
For example, I might hear that a gluten-free diet will help control multiple sclerosis.
This intrigues me and I start to check this out (effectively, research it, in a
grammatical sense). This is inquiry. I can do this any way I want. I find the results
compelling enough to dedicate some real time and funding to examine the
hypothesis. I do a real experiment with the aim of getting published. That experiment
will consist of following the fortunes of two groups of MS patients, one that will
adhere to a gluten-free diet, the other who won’t.
I am then going to have to determine my research protocols, and this will be very
complicated. How do I reduce the risk of bias in the selection of my two cohorts?
How do I try to mitigate the placebo effect? I’d like to use accepted double blind
clinical research protocols, but this is tricky in this case. What kind of statistical
methods will I use to determine significance? How do I…. the list goes on, and
becomes ever more complicated. My choices and the rigor with which I carry out the
research will be crucial in making its results, whether positive or negative, viable.
Without protocols I might well just ask around, be swayed by a great number of
people who have reduced gluten and feel better, when in reality, the effect was purely
psychosomatic, or maybe those who tried and found no effect didn’t speak up, or
maybe there is a fundamental difference in the patient groups, or maybe…. etc.
There is perhaps one other difference, and that is adherence to the greatest
“protocol” of all - the scientific method. Fundamentally, research carried out under
the scientific method does not try to “prove” anything. It tries to disprove
hypotheses. In my example above, I have perhaps formed the hypothesis that gluten-
free diets may indeed help control MS, so my research is going to try to disprove the
hypothesis. It can not actually be proved, that’s not how science works (which is why
mathematics, strictly speaking, is not science). It’s just that if enough people try to
disprove an hypothesis and fail, it starts to look pretty valid. That’s a crucial but
somewhat counter-intuitive point that the general public doesn’t typically
understand.
We can talk about good research and bad research, whereas we don’t really talk about
good inquiry or bad inquiry. I think any inquiry is good, we are a curious species, but
research has standards. The press, for example, is very bad at being skeptical about
scientific research, they tend to jump on exciting prospects in papers without being
able to assess the quality of the protocols (“cold fusion!”, “cure for cancer!”, “faster
than light travel!”… etc. ad nauseum). Likewise, any journalist who writes an article
claiming “scientists prove that…” fundamentally doesn’t understand science, because
he or she does not understand the scientific method.
PS Just in case you’re wondering, the best research I can find does not support the
hypothesis that gluten free diets help control MS… or really have much other benefit
for those not suffering from certain specific diseases. Just in case you were curious.
Upvote · 1
Share
Recommended All
A
d
d
a
c
o
m Anita Palladino, CEO (2005-present)
m Answered Jan 7
e
n
To t..
me, my completely non scientific answer is that inquiry is asking a question,
.
research digs deep for answers through other people, books, primary source
materials, prior research, as well as inquiring about the subject thru live sources.
Upvote · 1
Share
Recommended All
A
d
d
a
c
o
m George Williams, Research Writer (2012-present)
m Answered Dec 22, 2017
e
n
Originally Answered: What is the comparison between Inquiry and Research?
t..
The. two terms are used interchangeably at times.
Upvote
Share
Recommended All
A
d
d
a
c
o
m
m
e
n
t..
.