Best Practices for Devising a Research Purpose Statement and Questions

Abstract

No more valuable opportunity exists for a doctoral student to increase skill in writing research papers than to review and critique completed dissertations. However, before value can be realized from such critiques, knowledge of the criteria required for a dissertation is essential for a reader. For example, Ellis and Levy (2008) recommended that a carefully developed Research Proposal Statement renders the possibility that a solution could be forthcoming. Inexorably intertwined with the Research Proposal are the Research Questions. "If one wants to solve a [research] problem, one must generally know what the problem is” (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 18). In fact, the Research Proposal “is the axis around which the whole research effort revolves" (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19). Consequently, learning to precisely state Research Proposals and Research Questions "with unwavering clarity…is the first requirement in the research process” (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19).

Best Practices for Devising a Research Purpose Statement and Questions

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how Research Purpose Statements and Research Questions can be improved using suggestions provided by Creswell (2008), Aveyard (2007), and others. Synthesizing the many sections of a dissertation by novice researchers requires the ability to identify a research problem. Learning "how to properly construct and develop logical argumentation for a problem statement" (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19) provides the doctoral student with additional skills over time.

Background of Nardone's Dissertation

Nardone (2009) submitted a dissertation entitled "Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. The purpose of the study was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). The respondents represented two unique stakeholder groups for Graduate Schools of Education: GSOE deans and school superintendents" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Purpose Statement Revised

Appropriately critiquing a doctoral-level paper requires an understanding of what defines a Research Purpose Statement (RPS). Creswell (2008) provides such a definition by writing that the RPS "advances the overall direction or focus for the study" albeit quantitative and/or qualitative studies, and consists of one or two well formed sentences. The RPS quite often lies within the Statement of the Problem section, and is frequently placed at the Introduction's end. Nardone's (2009) dissertation stated that the RPS was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6). Although Nardone's (2009) RPS was stated in two sentences, a more profound problem exists with the beginning of her RPS sentence because she had previously indicated that her paper would address qualitative and quantitative research.

To accommodate both types, Creswell (2008) pointed out that a quantitative study's RPS states that "the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship…" (p. 121) while a qualitative RPS states that "the purpose of the study is to explore…" (p. 121). As noted above, Nardone (2009) only used "explore" to signify her study's intention (quantitative) when she should have used words to reference both qualitative and quantitative. Not adjusting her RPS to accommodate both types is confusing to readers. An improved RPS would address that the purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Questions Revised

The research questions presented in a dissertation by Nardone (2009) included "three major research questions, and related sub-questions. One objective of the research is to identify, and quantify, the actual role that the reputational survey plays (based on respondents’ scores) in the USNWR GSOE rankings" (p. 8). Consequently, "prior research of the undergraduate rankings indicates that the reputational aspect significantly drives the overall ranking of the institutions" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8).

Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8).

Exploring the behaviors and perceptions of the survey respondents—the GSOE deans and school superintendents—is another objective of the research. Nardone (2009) explains that:

Research explores the respondents' perceptions about the GSOE
rankings themselves, in terms of what purpose the rankings might serve,
and their perceptions about the reputational survey component of
these rankings. More specifically, the study aims to understand
their level of awareness of the reputational survey, their understanding
of their impact on the rankings, their level of responsiveness to the
survey, and their methods and approach to responding to the survey.
Why do they, or do they not, respond to the survey? Do they personally
respond to the survey? Do they consult with other colleagues? An
important emphasis of the research will be on exploring the differences
in perceptions and behaviors between these two stakeho lder groups.
These objectives are captured in the second research question. (p. 8).

Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

Nardone (2009) states:

Finally, this research will explore the concept of reputation with
these survey respondents. The literature indicates that reputation is
generally conceptualized as either prominence or as perceived quality.
This research asks the two stakeholder groups what forms the basis of
their rating of institutions when responding to the USNWR survey. Do
they consider the quality of the program graduates? Do they consider
the quality and production (output) of faculty research? Do they consider
the glossy promotional materials that cross their desk? Do they consider
the level of sponsored research? Do they consider student selectivity?
Do they consider the published rankings themselves? This will
explore whether this important ranking category captures reputation as
either prominence, or perceived quality. Again, an important emphasis is
the examination of the differences between the two stakeholder groups.
Thus, the third research question. (p. 9).

Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

This study does not join the active debate over the best indicators or
measures of quality, but instead accepts “reputation” as an asset of
value for the university and explores the perceptions and behaviors
of two stakeholder groups involved in the rating of academic
reputation. (p. 9).

After reviewing Nardone's (2009) research questions several times, and comparing the questions against Nardone's (2009) Research Problem Statement, which was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6), my general impression is that the RPS is not broadly stated enough to encompass all of the research questions. Since one of the goals of the RPS is to be precise, and then suggesting that the RPS is not broad enough, my opinion is that Nardone (2009) is attempting to integrate too many research questions.

To reiterate, the three research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

As mentioned, my impression is that there is some duplication between Q2 and Q3, and this is because both questions ask, "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ?". The list of topics Nardone (2009) has chosen to cover in the research questions is overwhelming. The Research Problem Statement revised as previously discussed is to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

The associated unrevised research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

After revising the above, the Problem Statement and Research Questions are:
Problem Statement: Explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). Questions: 1. What is the significance of the reputational survey? 2. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey. 3. How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation?

To provide a revision of the Research Questions so that consistencies and differences are identified (via meta-ethnography and meta-synthesis) (Aveyard, 2007, p. 108) with the Problem Statement, the final suggested revision is:

Q1. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their
perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey?

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was two-fold: revising the research purpose statement and revising research questions presented by Nardone's (2009) dissertation entitled, "Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs". Coincidentally, the subject of Nardone's (2009)dissertation mirrors one of the dissertation subjects chosen for my doctorate program, which is to research why the ranking of America's institutes of learning continues to fall when compared with global learning institutes. Working on assignments for EDU7002 serves two purposes: submitting the required work for EDU7002 (and other future courses), and assessing literature, which provides excellent opportunities to develop skills in preparing dissertation-level papers in the future.


References

Aveyard, H. (2007). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Great Britain, UK: Open University Press. Retrieved from Northcentral University E-brary.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ellis, T.J., & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, (11), p. 17. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p017-033Ellis486.pdf

Nardone, M.S. (2009). Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. Dissertation retrieved from Northcentral University's Library's ProQuest.