Reglamento federal de seguridad y salud en el trabajo

Asking research questions such as why, how and what are a particular recurring feature of my critical reflective thinking. For me, this research context is challenging to investigate particularly in relation to the emerging research questions and thinking

of an appropriate method of investigation. Stewart et al. (2007, p.53) for example, suggest that a well-defined research question is one that ‘identifies the topic of the research, the population that is relevant to the question and the specific issues of interest’. Bryman (2007, p.7), however, questions whether the research question is

‘crucial’ with regard to the direction of the investigation and suggests that there were uncertainties even a ‘rejection of the view that research questions drive research’.

Gregory (2000) suggested that ‘Trying to formulate your research questions as clearly as you can force you to address the issue of just what it is you want to understand better’ (Gregory, 2000, p.19). In describing the uncertainty of trying to search for questions and seeking to make sense of case study research, Gillham advises that it is useful to do ‘some’ reading around the research topic before being immersed in the actual setting, and that:

… the notion that you do an extensive literature review first from which you derive an hypothesis to test is a nonsense in real-world research. It represents an adherence to an inappropriate paradigm … To a great extent you won’t know what you’re looking for in the literature until you do get into the real context. And what you find in the literature will sensitise your perceptions. This progressive influence is one dimension of the emergent character of case study research. (Gillham, 2000, pp.37 – 38)

Interestingly the union of literature about issues of ‘learning difficulties’, higher education participation, theatre arts and employment is extremely limited – and more so from a postmodern perspective which draws upon the work of Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari. Nonetheless, whilst describing the importance of ‘framing good questions’ Gillham raises a moot point concerning research questions capable of being answered. Gillham argues that such questions are not easily achieved and that a great deal of time will be spent on developing and modifying them. His reasoning being that ‘It’s no use asking questions that can’t be answered’ (Gillham, 2000, p.17). At times this also involves, according to Gillham (2005, p.159),

adapting research questions to ‘... better fit the character of what you are

researching’. Gillham (2005, p.159) suggests that there is nothing ‘... corrupt about this: it happens all the time – it just isn’t formally recorded because it violates the convention of ‘logical’ structure’.

Another troubling question is: how do individuals ‘know’ what questions cannot be answered? The work of Andrews (2003) addresses this concern and suggests that questions being ‘answerable’ should be related to the research context. For

Andrews (2003), a research question ‘must be answerable’; he suggests that it is not advisable to have questions that are ‘so all-embracing’ that would be impossible to answer ‘within the confines’ of the research project (Andrews, 2003, p.2).

However, Andrews explains that the research question ‘does not’ have to have an answer and that this is ‘acceptable’, reasoning that ‘at least you have tried to answer it’ (Andrews, 2003, p.3). Andrews advises that even if questions are not answerable results may be illuminating. Factors such as the amount of time, costs and the number of researchers will all influence the kind of questions that can be asked (Andrews, 2003, p.7). Although another question that may be asked is: how do researchers know how much time is going to be taken to answer a question?

Andrews’ response to this question is that:

Research questions can take time to develop. While in many ways they are the starting point for the focused research, they can take weeks or months to develop. In some fields and on some projects, the whole aim might be, over several years, to work towards a research question!

(Andrews, 2003, p.9)

For me, research questions relating to why and how the initiative ‘failed’ in its

attempt to set up a degree level programme, took no less than 26 months to emerge (from June 2003 to July 2005) and, arguably, years with regard to theorising

disability, and understanding the exclusion of individuals described as having

‘learning difficulties’ from modern higher education participation.

In addition, there are reservations with asking why type questions. Patton (1990), for example, suggests that questions which ask ‘why’ can imply that the person’s

response is inappropriate. For Patton, asking ‘why’ type questions presuppose a cause and effect relationship (Patton, 1990, p.313). Similar reservations are also held by Rubin and Rubin (2005) who advise against using ‘why’ type questions particularly as main questions. Rubin and Rubin suggest that the interviewer ask about the experiences of the interviewee and ‘from what you have heard work out the reason why’ (Rubin and Rubin, 2005, p.158). Kvale (2007, p.58) suggests that understanding reasons and explanations ‘why’ something happened is primarily the task of the interviewer, and which may ‘go beyond the subjects’ self-understanding’.

By this, Kvale suggests that interviewing, being a personal craft, is not a valid method given that validation becomes a matter of checking, questioning and theoretically interpreting the findings (Kvale, 2007, p.87). Yin, however, makes the point that ‘One insight into asking good questions is to understand that research is about questions and not necessarily about answers’ (Yin, 1994, pp.56 – 57).

Moreover, Wilkinson and Birmingham (2003, p.3) make the point more generally that social research is problematic, and suggest that ‘anything that will go wrong will go wrong’ and advise that this is a situation researchers ought not to fear and

‘accept it is part of the challenge of research, and try to make the most of it.’