◄Previous: 4 Descriptive versus analytical questions

# 5 Developing a good research question

You have now spent some time thinking through both what makes a good research question, and the types of research question you might ask. Now you will bring all this together with an activity that asks you to assess the quality of some example questions.

Before moving onto the following activity, you might want to think back to Jamie Gaskarth’s masterclass, where he discussed two pieces of quite different research that both represented excellent research questions. First, Roxanne Lyn Doty’s explanatory research was formulated as a ‘how’ question. She then undertook archival research in order to analyse the power structures and knowledge claims that served to legitimise military intervention by the United States in the Philippines. Second, Virginia Page Fortna also asked an explanatory question, but did so with a positivist, hypothesis-testing approach. She achieved this by setting out clear parameters for the research and defining her cases carefully. In doing so, she was able to provide stronger evidence that UN peacekeeping is effective.

## Activity 4 Formulating good research questions in IR

approximately 1 hour

Take a look at the following six research questions. Spend around ten minutes on each one, thinking about the following questions:

- Does it imply a positivist or interpretivist approach?
- What type of question is it? (i.e. descriptive, comparative, exploratory, explanatory, evaluative.)
- Is it a ‘good’ research question? Why/why not?

1. How successful has NATO’s response to the Russia–Ukraine War been?

(A text entry box would appear here, but your browser does not support it.)

### Discussion

This is a fairly good research question. It implies a positivist approach to the research and poses an evaluative question (in this case, assessing the impact of NATO support for the outcomes of the Russia–Ukraine War). The question is specific and focused, and clearly sets out the key actors to be studied – NATO – and the political event (the Russia–Ukraine War). The answerability of the project would depend on the kinds of primary and secondary data available. It might also be strengthened by further narrowing down the focus. One option would be by identifying a timeframe, for example, to examine NATO activities following the Russian invasion of 2022. Without a timeframe, the research project could potentially become very large and unmanageable. The question would also need to specify what it means by ‘success’ and with which NATO ‘responses’ it is concerned, but these could be achieved through sub-questions and discussed in the introduction.

2. What is the role of soft power in international diplomacy? A comparative study of the United States and China.

(A text entry box would appear here, but your browser does not support it.)

### Discussion

This is a good research question. Its purpose is both explanatory and comparative (explaining how soft power functions through a clear comparison of important states) and it could invite either a positivist or interpretivist response, depending on how one conceptualises and measures ‘soft power’. The question has a clear focus, with the researcher choosing two actors (the US and China) and one political phenomenon (the use of soft power in international diplomacy) to investigate. The researcher would need to conceptualise both ‘soft power’ and ‘international diplomacy’ in this study and could draw on large bodies of literature that explain and debate the two concepts. This research question could have been made stronger by including a timeframe, and it could also have identified a specific area or dynamic of soft power to focus on. The researcher will also need to ensure that they are able to access and gather enough primary and secondary data to ensure that the project is answerable.

3. What is the use of social media in diplomacy? An exploration of its efficacy and challenges.

(A text entry box would appear here, but your browser does not support it.)

### Discussion

This is a weak research question. The question is exploratory, and it could be addressed through either a positivist or interpretivist prism. The researcher has chosen one political phenomenon – the use of social media in diplomacy. However, they have not chosen any cases to study (such as the US and China in Question 2 above) and there is no timeframe. It is not clear what ‘efficacy and challenges’ in this context mean and both terms would be difficult to conceptualise and qualify meaningfully in a way that adds to our understanding of international relations. As a result, the research question is vague, unfocused and the project is in danger of becoming too descriptive and generalised, poorly structured and unmanageable for the researcher.

4. To what extent do NGOs shape global governance regimes? An analysis of norm-building in successful arms control regimes.

(A text entry box would appear here, but your browser does not support it.)

### Discussion

This is a good research question. It is framed within an interpretivist approach to international relations. The question is exploratory yet opens the door to explanation, too. The research question is likely answerable because while primary research might be possible, albeit potentially bringing challenges of access, the researcher could nevertheless draw on significant bodies of academic literature related to NGOs, global governance and arms control regimes. The research will need to consider what, exactly, it is referring to by ‘successful arms control regimes’ and make this clear to the reader. It will also likely need to identify key cases to analyse, and the question might be stronger were these indicated in the core research question.

5. Human security as power/knowledge: an analysis of biopolitics.

(A text entry box would appear here, but your browser does not support it.)

### Discussion

This is a weak research question. It adopts an interpretivist framework, centred on ideas of power/knowledge, but it is not clear what the purpose of the research question is. Although undertaking a research project on human security and biopolitics would be feasible given the large bodies of scholarly research on the subject, the current research question is too vague. Stating the actors and political event to be studied and providing a timeframe would strengthen the research question, making the research project more feasible and manageable. Further exploration of the existing literature to identify areas of neglect could help to narrow down the research question.

6. Compare and contrast the foreign policies of Russia and India.

(A text entry box would appear here, but your browser does not support it.)

### Discussion

This is a weak research question. The question is clearly comparative, but it is also descriptive. It is not clear whether foreign policy would be approached here through a positivist or interpretivist framework. Although the question identifies two actors (Russia and India), it is not clear why these cases have been chosen, or what value their comparison will bring. Moreover, researching ‘foreign policies’ is too vague and needs to be further specified, likely in terms of timeframe and empirical focus. This project could become too large for a dissertation project and potentially unmanageable in the time allocated for completing the project. The lack of focus could also mean that the researcher is in danger of providing quite generalised and descriptive answers.

◄Contents►Next: Conclusion

OpenLearn - Developing a research question in International Relations
Except for third party materials and otherwise, this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence, full copyright detail can be found in the acknowledgements section. Please see full copyright statement for details.